[2021] KEELRC 189 (KLR)
The court found that the advocate failed to demonstrate when the bill of costs was served on the respondent, a necessary condition for the award of interest under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. As such, the advocate was not entitled to interest on the taxed costs. However, the court allowed the motion...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELRC 189 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Amondi & Co Advocates; Respondent: County Government of Kisumu
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 36 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion to Adopt Certificate of Costs as Judgment
- Outcome
- motion allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Interest on Costs, Certificate of 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
Amondi & Co Advocates
Applicant
County Government of Kisumu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion to Adopt Certificate of Costs as Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Certificate of Costs should be adopted as a judgment of the court.
- 2 Whether the advocate is entitled to interest on the taxed costs under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the advocate failed to demonstrate when the bill of costs was served on the respondent, a necessary condition for the award of interest under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. As such, the advocate was not entitled to interest on the taxed costs. However, the court allowed the motion to the extent that the Certificate of Costs for KES 1,820,405.33, as taxed, was adopted as a judgment of the court. Costs of the motion were awarded to the advocate.
Court Disposition
motion allowed in part
Orders
- The Certificate of Costs for KES 1,820,405.33 is adopted as a judgment of the court.
- Costs of the motion are awarded to the advocate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT KISUMU
MISC APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF ADVOCATE REMUNERATION ORDER
AMONDI & CO ADVOCATES...................ADVOCATE/APPLICANT
v
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KISUMU....CLIENT/RESPONDENT
ARISING FROM EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR
RELATIONS COURT PETITION NO. 4 OF 2018
KISUMU COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD..1st PETITIONER
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KISUMU..............2nd PETITIONER
v
NASHON W OGUYA...............................................1st RESPONDENT
BETTY ASUNAH....................................................2nd RESPONDENT
MOSES ONDIEK ODINDO...................................3rd RESPONDENT
JACKSON ODENY OYOO....................................4th RESPONDENT
VIOLET SALLY ONYANGO.................................5th RESPONDENT
EMILY OLAGO......................................................6th RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The County Public Service Board, Kisumu and the County Government of Kisumu retained the firm of Amondi & Co. Advocates (the advocate) to represent them in Kisumu Petition No. 4 of 2018, County Public Service Board, Kisumu & Ar v Eng Nashon W.O. Oguya & Ors.
2. In a judgment delivered on 20 September 2018, the Court dismissed the Petition.
3. The advocate then filed an advocate/client bill of costs which was taxed at Kshs 1,820,405/33, and a Certificate of Costs issued on 6 April 2021.
4. On 14 June 2021, the advocate filed a Motion seeking an order that the Certificate of Costs be adopted as a judgment/decree of the Court.
5. On the same day, the advocate filed submissions in support of the Motion (Respondents purportedly filed Grounds of Opposition to the Motion on 8 June 2021).
6. In his submissions, the advocate stated that the bill of costs was served upon the Respondents on 11 August 2020 and that interest was sought therein at 14% p.a.
7. Pursuant to directions given on 17 June 2021, the Respondents filed their submissions on 6 July 2021, in which it was urged that by dint of section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act and since a decree had not been extracted, the question of interest was premature or was not payable.
8. The Respondent further asserted that it was not clear when the advocate submitted to them the bill of costs to enable the Court to ascertain when interest would start to accrue.
9. The Court has considered all the material placed before it.
10. The supporting affidavit to the initial Motion filed in Court on 4 August 2020 did not disclose when the advocate furnished the Respondents with the bill of costs. In fact, it appears that the bill of costs was only served upon the Respondents after it had been filed in Court.
11. In terms of Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the advocate would not be entitled to interest on the taxed costs for failure to demonstrate a condition precedent to the award of interest, and the Court so finds.
12. Consequently, the Court will only allow the Motion to the following extent:
(a) The Certificate of Costs in respect of the taxation order made on 24th February 2021 for the sum of Kenya Shillings One Million eight hundred and twenty-four thousand four hundred and fifty-five and thirty-three cents only (1,820,405/33) is hereby adopted as a judgment of the Honourable Court.
13. Costs of the Motion to the advocate.
DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS, DATED AND SIGNED IN KISUMU ON THIS 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021.
Radido Stephen, MCIArb
Judge
Appearances
For applicant Amondi & Co. Advocates
For Respondent Omondi, Abande & Co Advocates
Court Assistant Chrispo Aura