[2023] KEHC 3672 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had produced a valid certificate of taxation for Kshs. 367,137, which had not been set aside or altered. There was no dispute as to the retainer, and the application was unopposed. Applying section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the court held that the certificate of taxation is final...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 3672 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Anthony Burugu & Company Advocates; Respondent: Benson Mwangi Nderitu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Naivasha
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application E045 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Certificate of Taxation
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Judgment entered for the applicant for the sum certified in the certificate of taxation.
- Judges
- GL Nzioka
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Certificate of Taxation, Judgment Entry, Unopposed Application
- 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
Anthony Burugu & Company Advocates
Applicant
Benson Mwangi Nderitu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Certificate of Taxation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered against the respondent for the sum certified in the certificate of taxation.
- 2 Whether the certificate of taxation is final and conclusive as to the amount of costs where the retainer is not disputed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had produced a valid certificate of taxation for Kshs. 367,137, which had not been set aside or altered. There was no dispute as to the retainer, and the application was unopposed. Applying section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the court held that the certificate of taxation is final as to the amount of costs, and in the absence of any challenge or dispute, judgment should be entered for the sum certified. The application was therefore allowed as prayed.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Judgment entered for the applicant for the sum certified in the certificate of taxation.
Orders
- Judgment is entered against the respondent for Kshs. 367,137 in accordance with the certificate of taxation dated 16th March 2022.
- The respondent shall pay the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Anthony Burugu & Company Advocates v Nderitu (Miscellaneous Civil Application E045 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 3672 (KLR) (27 April 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 3672 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Naivasha
Miscellaneous Civil Application E045 of 2021
GL Nzioka, J
April 27, 2023
Between
Anthony Burugu & Company Advocates
Applicant
and
Benson Mwangi Nderitu
Respondent
Ruling
1. The subject application herein is dated 31st March 2022 brought under the provisions of section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act (Cap 16) Laws of Kenya, and all enabling provisions of the law. The applicant is seeking for orders that: -a.Judgment be entered against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs. 367,137/- in accordance with the Certificate of Taxation dated 16th March 2022. b.The cost of the application be provided for.
2. The application is supported by the grounds thereto and the affidavit of even date sworn by Anthony Burugu, an advocate of the High Court practising as such in the applicant’s firm. He avers that he filed a Client- Advocate bill of costs (herein “the bill”) dated 20th August 2021, and on 10th March 2022 it was taxed at Kshs. 367,137. Consequently, a certificate of taxation was issued on 16th March 2022.
3. The application was served as evidence by the affidavit of service sworn on 24th November 2022, but no response was filed and therefore it is unopposed,
4. In considering he same I note that, the provision of section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, states as follows: -“The certificate of a taxing officer by whom it has been taxed shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the court, be final as to the amount of costs covered thereby, and the court may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including in a case where the retainer is not disputed, an order that judgment be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.”
5. In that regard I note that the applicant has produced evidence of the certificate of costs dated; 16th March 2022. I also take note of the ruling of the bill dated 10th March 2022. The same has not been set aside and neither is there a dispute on retainer. In that case I find that he application has merit and I allow it as prayed.
6. It is so ordered.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED ON THIS 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2023GRACE L. NZIOKAJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Burugu for the ApplicantN/A for the RespondentMs Ogutu; Court Assistant