[2020] KEHC 2399 (KLR)
The court found that the Respondent, as the successful party, was entitled to its full costs since there was no other order relating to costs. Upon reviewing the Taxing Master's reasons, the court was persuaded that the bill of costs was taxed in accordance with the Advocates Remuneration Order and the applicable...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 2399 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Bedrock Security Services Limited; Respondent: Bedrock Holdings Limited; Plaintiff: Bedrock Security Services Limited; Defendant: Bedrock Holdings Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 133 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Reference Against Taxation of Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Party and Party Costs, Advocates Remuneration Order
- 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
Bedrock Security Services Limited
Applicant
Bedrock Holdings Limited
Respondent
Bedrock Security Services Limited
Plaintiff
Bedrock Holdings Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Reference Against Taxation of Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Taxing Master erred in taxing the Respondent's bill of costs on specified items.
- 2 Whether the bill of costs should be referred back for taxation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Respondent, as the successful party, was entitled to its full costs since there was no other order relating to costs. Upon reviewing the Taxing Master's reasons, the court was persuaded that the bill of costs was taxed in accordance with the Advocates Remuneration Order and the applicable rules. The applicant's challenge was found to lack merit, and the application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The Chamber Summons dated 12.06.2020 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
(CORAM: CHERERE-J
CIVIL SUIT NO.133 OF 2009
BEDROCK SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED ........PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS BEDROCK HOLDINGS LIMITED .................. DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By Chamber Summons dated 12. 06. 2020 brought under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the Applicant challenges the Taxing Master’s decision on items 1, 2, 5, 6, 32, 33, 37, 40, 41, 44, 49, 51, 53, 59, 63, 68, 52 and 55 in the Respondent’s bill of costs dated 21. 01. 2020 and prays that the bill of costs be referred back for taxation.
2. The Respondent in his replying affidavit sworn on 24. 07. 2020 though claiming that the taxed sum is inadequate did not file a reference.
3. I have carefully considered the reference in the light of the affidavits on record.
4. In civil litigation, there are two distinct methods of determining fees and these are said to be Party and Party fees and Advocate and Client fees. Party and Party costs are based on the principle that the unsuccessful party in any case must, unless the court otherwise orders for good reason, pay the successful party.
5. The Respondent was the successful party and there being no other order relating to costs, I find that it was entitled to its full costs.
6. I have considered the reasons for taxation contained in the Taxing Master’s ruling dated 29. 05. 2020 and I am persuaded that the bill of costs was taxed in terms of the Advocates Remuneration Order and the Rules thereto.
7. Consequently, the Chamber Summons dated 12. 06. 2020 is without merit and it is dismissed.
DATED AT KISUMU THIS 21st DAY OF October 2020
T. W. CHERERE
JUDGE
Court Assistants For Applicant For Respondent
- Ms. Amondi/Ms. Okodoi
- Mr. Otieno for Owiti, Otieno & Ragot Advocate
- Mr. Mwamu for Mwamu & Co. Advocates