In Re Costs of a Legal Practitioner IN RE SILAS P. DOVE v. BARDAWILL AND COMPANY.

RULING.-MiCHELIN, J.

This is an application by the defendants for a review of the taxation of a Bill of Fees dated the 10th October, 1930, for professional services rendered by the plaintiff as a legal practitioner, which had been taxed by the taxing master of this Court and approved by the Court on the 19th January, 1931.

The Bill of fees was originally rendered for the sum of £214 1s. 2d., but was taxed and approved at the sum of £20017" " s. 2" " d.

Obiection has been raised to the taxation in respect to the following three items :-

(1) 10 per cent commission on £794 13s. 6" " d.

Judgment debt against Kaiat ... ... ... 4 "

(2) 10 per cent commission on £2097" " s. 1d.

Judgment debt against E. Opare Addo ... ... 2018 8

(3) 5 per cent commission on £1,71316 s. 8" " d.

Counterclaim judgment in favour of plaintiffs in

Bardawill & Co. v. E. Opare Addo ... ... 8513-- 0 dated 10th October, 1930.

In arguing this motion, Mr. Carter on behalf of the defendants referred the Court to a previous Bill of fees dated the 15th May,

1930, which had been rendered by the plaintiff to the defendants, and which had been settled by them, in which the highest amount charged for similar professional services was £5 5s. and to a letter dated the 2nd June, 1930, written by the defendants to the plaintiff which reads as follows:-

“ S. P. Dove Èsq.

Accra.

Accra

2nd June, 1930.

" Dear Sir

" As you have been doing our work from the time we came up " here to the present we would like to continue with you.

" Our conditions will be as follows:-

" 1 . At any time you appear in the Court for us in

" connection with any of our clients, you are only entitled to

" the amount which the Court gives you against the client. " as usual.

“ 2. Any paper or document you draw, your fees will be

" Kindly reply to our letter as we have some work to be done "so as to know what to do.

Yours faithfully, (Sgd) Bardawill Co.

He contended that while the defendants had always been ready and willing to pay the plaintiff whatever amount the Court should deem to be reasonable for the work done by the plaintiff, in respect of each of these items, he considered the amounts charged by the plaintiff to be unreasonable.

He referred to the practice which had been recognised by the Court in the case of Lokko v. Panagoulis (Divisional Court 2nd December, 1929) and which had apparently been allowed by the taxing master in this case of allowing a sum not exceeding 10 per cent on the amount for w