[2022] KEHC 1092 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 1092 (KLR)

The court found that the firm of Owade & Company Advocates did not have proper instructions to act on behalf of the 2nd applicant in the appeal, as there was no board resolution or written instructions authorizing the firm to institute proceedings. Oral instructions from the fund manager were insufficient, given the statutory requirements for corporate bodies and public entities. The absence of such authority meant that the advocate-client relationship necessary for taxation of costs did not exist, depriving the Taxing Officer of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the advocate-client bill of costs was not filed as a miscellaneous application as required by Rule 13(3) of the Advocates Remuneration...

Citation
[2022] KEHC 1092 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: The Chairman Constituency Development Fund Suna East Constituency (CDF); Appellant: Constituency Development Fund Suna East Constituency (CDF); Respondent: Jambo Construction Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Migori
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
31 March 2022
Case Number
Civil Appeal 118 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Dismiss Advocate Client Bill of Costs
Outcome
Application allowed; advocate-client bill of costs dismissed with costs to the applicants.
Judges
RPV Wendoh
Legal Topics
Advocate Client Costs, Instructions to Counsel, Corporate Authority, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Advocate Client Costs Instructions to Counsel Corporate Authority Taxation of Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Chairman Constituency Development Fund Suna East Constituency (CDF)

Appellant

Constituency Development Fund Suna East Constituency (CDF)

Appellant

Jambo Construction Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Dismiss Advocate Client Bill of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the firm of Gilbert Ouma Owade was instructed to file an appeal on behalf of the 1st and 2nd applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the advocate-client bill of costs dated 22/2/2021 should be dismissed for offending the provisions of Rule 13(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the firm of Owade & Company Advocates did not have proper instructions to act on behalf of the 2nd applicant in the appeal, as there was no board resolution or written instructions authorizing the firm to institute proceedings. Oral instructions from the fund manager were insufficient, given the statutory requirements for corporate bodies and public entities. The absence of such authority meant that the advocate-client relationship necessary for taxation of costs did not exist, depriving the Taxing Officer of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the advocate-client bill of costs was not filed as a miscellaneous application as required by Rule 13(3) of the Advocates Remuneration...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; advocate-client bill of costs dismissed with costs to the applicants.

Orders

  • The application dated 28/4/2021 is allowed as prayed.
  • The advocate-client bill of costs dated 22/2/2021 is dismissed.