[2006] KEHC 885 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was retained by the respondent, rendered professional services, and issued a feenote which was not paid. The applicant's Bill of Costs was taxed, and a certificate of taxation was issued for KShs. 78,566.80. The respondent did not file any response or challenge to the certificate...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 885 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: A. M. Kimani & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 680 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Summary Judgment After Taxation of Costs
- Outcome
- Judgment entered for the applicant for the taxed costs, with interest and costs of the application.
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Summary Judgment, Certificate of Taxation
- 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
A. M. Kimani & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Summary Judgment After Taxation of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to summary judgment for the taxed costs under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
- 2 Whether the certificate of taxation is final and conclusive as to the amount of costs due.
- 3 Whether the respondent has raised any dispute or challenge to the certificate of taxation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was retained by the respondent, rendered professional services, and issued a feenote which was not paid. The applicant's Bill of Costs was taxed, and a certificate of taxation was issued for KShs. 78,566.80. The respondent did not file any response or challenge to the certificate of taxation. Under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the certificate is final as to the amount of costs unless set aside or altered, which had not occurred. Therefore, the applicant was entitled to summary judgment for the taxed amount, together with interest and costs of the application.
Court Disposition
Judgment entered for the applicant for the taxed costs, with interest and costs of the application.
Orders
- Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant for KShs. 78,566.80.
- The sum awarded will attract interest at 9% per annum from 22 July 2006.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Misc Appli 680 of 2006
A. M. KIMANI & CO. ADVOCATES……......……….ADVOCATE/APPLICANT
VERSUS
KENINDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD…………….…….CLIENT/RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
This is an application for summary judgement pursuant to the provisions of Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
The applicant has asked the court to grant judgement in its favour, for a sum equivalent to the taxed costs.
There is no dispute on the depositions set out in the affidavit of Alice Mugure Kimani, advocate, as the respondent failed to file any replying affidavit. In the circumstances, I do find that there was no dispute about the fact that the respondent herein, Kenindia Assurance Company Limited, had retained the firm of A. M. Kimani & Company Advocates, to defend the respondent’s insured, in Kajiado CMCC No. 358 of 2005.
Having provided professional services to the respondent, the applicant raised a feenote dated 20th June 2006, which was delivered to the respondent on 21st June 2006.
A copy of the feenote, which the applicant made available to the Court, shows that the applicant had asked the respondent to pay KShs. 34,974/=.
Although it is not expressly stated by the applicant, it would appear that the respondent did not pay the fee which was demanded by the applicant.
On 14th July 2006, the applicant lodged its Bill of Costs for taxation. The said Bill of Costs was taxed on 9th August 2006, and a ruling thereon was then delivered on 10th August 2006.
In her ruling, the learned taxing officer, Mrs Kiema, awarded to the applicant, the sum of KShs. 78,566/80. Thereafter, a certificate of taxation was issued on 21st August 2006, and it confirmed the award of costs.
As there has not been any alteration or other challenge to the certificate of taxation issued in this matter, it is deemed to be final as to be amount of costs covered thereby. That is what Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act stipulates.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority bestowed upon me by that statutory provision, I hereby enter judgement in favour of the applicant for KShs.78,566/80.
The said sum will attract interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 22 July 2006, which is a date that is more than a month from the time the applicant’s bill was delivered to the respondent for payment.
I also award to the applicant, the costs of the application dated 21st September 2006.
FRED A. OCHIENG
JUDGE
Read and Delivered at Nairobi by Azangalala J. this 6th day of November 2006.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE