[2010] KEHC 1781 (KLR)
The court held that since the certificate of taxation had not been set aside or altered and there was no dispute as to the retainer, the applicant was entitled to judgment for the certified sum. The respondent's failure to file a replying affidavit or attend court, despite being granted an adjournment, indicated...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1781 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Achola Jaoko & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Neelcon Construction Services Ltd.
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Case 677 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- Judgment entered for the applicant as prayed, with modifications on interest.
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bills, Interest on Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Achola Jaoko & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Neelcon Construction Services Ltd.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment on the certificate of taxation where the same has not been set aside or altered.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed costs and at what rate.
- 3 Whether the respondent's failure to file a replying affidavit or attend court affects the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the certificate of taxation had not been set aside or altered and there was no dispute as to the retainer, the applicant was entitled to judgment for the certified sum. The respondent's failure to file a replying affidavit or attend court, despite being granted an adjournment, indicated that the application was unopposed. Regarding interest, the court found that under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, interest is chargeable at 9% per annum from one month after delivery of the bill, which in this case was deemed to be from 9th April, 2010. The applicant was also entitled to further court fees and the costs of the application.
Court Disposition
Judgment entered for the applicant as prayed, with modifications on interest.
Orders
- Judgment for the applicant in the sum of Kshs.60,843 with interest at court rates from 9th April, 2010 until payment in full.
- Respondent to pay Kshs.4,020 being further court fees assessed and paid in the certificate of taxation.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Miscellaneous Case 677 of 2009
ACHOLA JAOKO & CO. ADVOCATES ……..........………… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NEELCON CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LTD. ……... DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The application before the Court is a notice of motion dated 15th March, 2010, and is made under Section 51 (2)of theAdvocates Act and Rule 7of theAdvocates (Remuneration) Order. The Applicants thereby seek orders –
1. That this honourable Court be pleased to enter judgment against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs.60,843/= together with interest thereon from the 20th day of November, 2009 until payment in full.
2. That this honourable Court be pleased to enter judgment against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs.4,020/= being further court fees assessed and paid on the certificate of taxation.
3. That the costs of this application be awarded to the Applicant.
The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Caleb
Odhiambo Jaoko, Advocate, and is based on the ground that the certificate of taxation herein dated on the 9th day of March, 2010, pursuant to the taxation of the Advocates – Client bill of costs has neither been set aside nor altered, and that there has been no dispute as to the retainer.
When the application first came for hearing on 30th April, 2010, Mr. Jaoko appeared for the Applicant and Mr. Omwanza for the Respondent. Mr. Omwanza applied for an adjournment in order to enable the Respondent to file a replying affidavit. Mr. Jaoko opposed the application on the ground the Respondent had had sufficient time to file a replying affidavit and that the application was a ploy to delay the finalization of this matter. His protestation notwithstanding, the Court granted the adjournment with leave to the Respondent to file and serve a replying affidavit within 7 days. The Applicant was in turn granted leave to file and serve a supplementary affidavit within seven days of service if need be. In the presence of both parties, the Court then fixed the application for hearing on 28th May, 2010.
On the hearing date, Mr. Jaoko appeared for the Applicant but there was no attendance by or for the Respondent. Since the date was given in open Court in the presence of the respective Counsel for both parties, and in sufficient time for them to attend Court, the Court elected to proceed ex parte.
Quite apart from the non attendance by learned Counsel for the Respondent, the Court noted that the adjournment granted on 30th April, 2010, was meant and intended to allow the Respondents to file a replying affidavit within 7 days at their own request. By the time the application came back for hearing, they had filed neither a replying affidavit nor grounds of opposition. Coupled with their unexplained failure to attend Court, the Court was left in no doubt that the Respondent was not serious about challenging the application, and that the same was therefore unopposed. In consequence, the Court found that the Applicant was entitled to the orders sought.
I note that in addition to the sum of Kshs.60,843/= certified by the Deputy Registrar under the certificate of taxation, the Applicant claims interest thereon at 14% p.a. from the 20th November, 2009 until payment in full. However, Rule 7of theAdvocates (Remuneration) Order provides that an Advocate may charge interest at 9% p.a. on his disbursements and costs from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client. In the instant case, it is noteworthy that the certificate of taxation was issued on 9th March, 2010 and that was the earliest date on which the bill could have been delivered to the clients. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to any interests with effect from one month after that date.
I accordingly enter judgment for the Applicant against the Respondents herein in the sum of Kshs.60,843/= with interest thereon at Court rates from 9th April, 2010 until payment in full. The Respondents will also pay the sum of Kshs.4,020/= being further Court fees assessed and paid in the certificate of taxation as well as the costs of this application.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 22nd day of July, 2010.
L. NJAGI
NJAGI