[2011] KEHC 1552 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was entitled to judgment for the taxed costs as the application was unopposed and the bill of costs had been taxed by consent. Interest could not be awarded from the date claimed by the applicant (25th March 2002) because the costs had not been taxed by then; interest is only...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1552 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: C.M. Mitema & Company Advocates; Respondent: City Council of Nairobi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 547 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Unopposed Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part. Judgment entered for applicant for taxed costs with interest from date of taxation. Costs awarded to applicant. Prayer for specific payment order declined as premature.
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Relationship, 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
C.M. Mitema & Company Advocates
Applicant
City Council of Nairobi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Unopposed Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered for the applicant for the taxed costs as against the respondent.
- 2 Whether interest on the taxed costs should run from the date claimed or from the date of taxation.
- 3 Whether an order can issue directing the Town Clerk to pay the decretal amount within seven days.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was entitled to judgment for the taxed costs as the application was unopposed and the bill of costs had been taxed by consent. Interest could not be awarded from the date claimed by the applicant (25th March 2002) because the costs had not been taxed by then; interest is only payable from the date of taxation, which was 26th January 2011. The prayer seeking an order directing the Town Clerk to pay within seven days was premature as such orders pertain to execution, not judgment. Costs of the application were awarded to the applicant. Accordingly, prayers 1 and 4 were granted as sought, prayer 2 was granted but interest to run from the date of taxation,...
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part. Judgment entered for applicant for taxed costs with interest from date of taxation. Costs awarded to applicant. Prayer for specific payment order declined as premature.
Orders
- Judgment is entered for the applicant against the respondent for Kshs. 407,592.
- The respondent shall pay the applicant interest at 14% per annum from 26th January 2011 until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.547 OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES ACT (CHAPTER 16 OF LAWS OF KENYA)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF TAXATION OF COSTS BETWEEN ADVOCATE/CLIENT
BETWEEN
C.M. MITEMA &COMPANY ADVOCATES..........................................................APPLICANT
AND
CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI.............................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
Before me is an application dated 13th Aril 2011 filed by the applicant C.M. Mitema & Company advocates. The respondents are the City Council of Nairobi.
The application was filed under Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and section 51(2) of the Advocates Act (Cap.16) as well as Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, section 263 A (a) of the Local Government Act (Cap. 265 Laws of Kenya), and section 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure (Cap. 21).
The application seeks orders against the City Council of Nairobi. It arises from an advocate/client bill of costs which was taxed by consent on 26th January 2011.
The application was served on 26th May 2011 but no response was filed, nor did anybody appear for the respondent on the hearing date which was 23/6/2011. The application therefore stands unopposed.
The specific prayers in the application are 4. They are as follows ?
1. Judgment be entered for the applicant as against the respondent for the sum of Kenya shillings Four Hundred and Seven Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Two (Kshs.407,592/=).
2. The respondent do pay the applicant the said sum plus interest at 14% per annum from the 25th March 2002 till payment in full.
3. An order do issue directing the Town Clerk of the City Council of Nairobi to pay the decretal amount out of the revenue of the respondent Council within seven (7) days of service of this order.
4. Costs of this application be borne by the respondent.
Though the application is not opposed, only prayers 1 and 4 can be granted in the form in which they are. Prayer 2 asks for interest from 25th March 2002, when the costs had not been taxed. The interest, in my view, can only run from the date of taxation. Prayer 3 pre-empts execution, which is a different stage from entry of judgment. This prayer is not currently grantable. It is premature
Consequently, I allow the application. I grant prayer 1, and 4. Prayer 2 is granted from the date of taxation, which is 26th January 2011. Prayer 3 is declined, as it is premature.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 14th day of July 2011.
............................
GEORGE DULU
JUDGE
In the presence of
No appearance for Applicant
No appearance for Respondent
C Muendo – court clerk