[2015] KEHC 2031 (KLR)
The court found that there is no provision in rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order that bars the entry of judgment in terms of a certificate of taxed costs, even where a party is dissatisfied with the taxation or is awaiting reasons from the taxing officer. The applicant had a valid certificate of taxed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 2031 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Charles Mbugua Njuguna t/a Njuguna & Partners Advocates; Respondent: Cornelius Kimani
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 25 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Certificate of Costs, Entry of Judgment, Advocate Remuneration, Interest on 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
Charles Mbugua Njuguna t/a Njuguna & Partners Advocates
Applicant
Cornelius Kimani
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment for the certified taxed costs.
- 2 Whether the respondent's dissatisfaction with taxation and intention to file a reference is a bar to entry of judgment.
- 3 Whether the court is barred from entering judgment in terms of a certificate of taxed costs under rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there is no provision in rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order that bars the entry of judgment in terms of a certificate of taxed costs, even where a party is dissatisfied with the taxation or is awaiting reasons from the taxing officer. The applicant had a valid certificate of taxed costs, and the respondent's dissatisfaction and intention to file a reference did not constitute a legal bar to the entry of judgment. The court was satisfied that the applicant was entitled to judgment for the certified amount and allowed the application in its entirety.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant for Kshs. 560,318.16 as certified costs.
- The respondent shall pay interest at 14% per annum on the certified costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 25 OF 2011
FORMERLY MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 558 OF 2010
CHARLES MBUGUA NJUGUNA T/A
NJUGUNA & PARTNERS ADVOCATES ……………..…APPLICANT
V E R S U S
CORNELIUS KIMANI ………………………………….…RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Motion dated 21st February 2013 seeks that judgment be entered in favour of the applicant for a sum of Kshs. 560,318. 16 being certified costs. The applicant also asks that the respondent be ordered to pay interest at 14% per annum on the certified costs.
2. The applicant’s case is that they prosecuted an application for revocation of a grant in Nairobi HCSC No. 915 of 1999 on behalf of the respondent. Thereafter the respondent failed to settle his fees, forcing him to tax a bill of costs against the respondent. The bill was taxed at Kshs. 560,318. 16 on 24th January 2014, and there is a certificate of costs to that effect.
3. There is a reply to the application by the respondent. The said reply is comprised in his affidavit sworn on 15th April 2013. He accuses the applicant of failing to execute the instructions that he had given him with respect to the revocation application in which case he chose to instruct another advocate. He asserts that he had paid the applicant in full. He further states that he is dissatisfied with the taxation and has instructed a lawyer to file a reference, but the taxing officer is yet to furnish him with the reasons for her decision. He pleads that judgment should be withheld for that reason.
4. To that affidavit, the applicant filed a further affidavit sworn on 23rd April 2003 pointing out that the taxing officer had delivered a ruling on 24th July 2013 which was available to the respondent, and which provides him with ample information which he can use to draft his reference.
5. I have perused rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order which deals with objections to a decision on taxation. I have noted that there is nothing there which would bar this court from entering judgment in terms of a certificate of taxed costs.
6. Consequently, I do hereby allow the application dated 21st February 2013 in its entirety.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 2ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015.
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE