[2008] KEHC 2798 (KLR)
The court held that the application for judgment against the respondents as administrators of the estate is competent because the prior court order specifically directed that the advocate's costs be taxed and paid from the deceased's estate. The certificate of taxation, having not been challenged or reviewed as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 2798 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: E.N Nganga & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Joyce Wanjiku Gitaka; Respondent: John Muhoko Gitaka
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 65 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed; judgment entered for applicant against respondents as administrators; decretal sum payable from estate
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Costs, Estate Administration, Certificate of Taxation
- 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
E.N Nganga & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Joyce Wanjiku Gitaka
Respondent
John Muhoko Gitaka
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for judgment against the respondents as administrators is competent.
- 2 Whether the certificate of taxation is valid and enforceable against the estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application for judgment against the respondents as administrators of the estate is competent because the prior court order specifically directed that the advocate's costs be taxed and paid from the deceased's estate. The certificate of taxation, having not been challenged or reviewed as provided under the Advocates Act and Remuneration Order, remains valid. The objections raised by the respondents regarding the certificate and the taxation process were dismissed as they had not properly challenged the certificate before the High Court. The judgment is therefore entered against the respondents in their capacity as administrators, and the decretal sum is to be paid...
Court Disposition
application allowed; judgment entered for applicant against respondents as administrators; decretal sum payable from estate
Orders
- Judgment is entered against the respondents as administrators of the estate of Geoffry Kimani Gitaka.
- The decretal sum as per the certificate of taxation shall be paid from the deceased's estate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS)
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION 65 OF 2005
E.N NGANGA & CO. ADVOCATES……………………….APPLICANT
VERSUS
JOYCE WANJIKU GITAKA AND
JOHN MUHOKO GITAKA……………….…………...….RESPONDENT
RULING
The first issue which I shall determine is the competence of the Notice of Motion dated 10th November, 2006.
The application seeks judgment against the respondents as administrators of Geoffry Kimani Gitaka the deceased herein.
The firm of E.N Ng’ang’a and Co. Advocates was representing the then administrator of the estate namely Mrs. Joyce Wanjiku Gitaka. On 9th November, 2004 the said firm was allowed to cease acting for the said administrator and along with the said order it was also ordered that the Advocates costs be taxed and paid from the deceased estate.
The bill of costs was filed on 18th October, 2005. The Notice of this bill was issued to all the respondents herein by Notice dated 23rd May, 2006. That is the reason that the Advocates of the Respondents have objected to the veracity of the certificate of taxation. On one side the Respondents have made comments and raised objections against the certificate of taxation and on the other hand they are contending before me that the application is not competent because in the certificate of taxation the 2nd and 3rd Respondents are not named therein. In both the replying affidavits the main contentions raised by them are the propriety of taxation made by the learned Deputy Registrar.
I shall not make any observations on the propriety or otherwise of the taxation proceedings as the Respondents have till to – date not come before the High Court as per the provisions of Advocates Act and Advocators Remuneration orders.
Thus in my opinion the contentions of the Respondents are nothing but approbation and reprobations.
Be that as it may, the application is for the judgment against the Respondents as the administrators of the estate. The applicant is not seeking judgment against the respondents in their personal capacity. It is on record that the administrators were substituted and the order of the court dated 9th day of November, 2004 was specific that the advocates costs be taxed and paid from the deceased estate.
The respondents as administrators are thus rightly brought on record and the application in my view is competent.
The certificate of taxation is given which is so far not challenged or reviewed. I once again make it clear that the Respondents are before the court as administrators of the estate and the judgment be entered against them as such and the decretal sum be paid from the estate.
Dated and signed this 14th day of March, 2008.
K.H.RAWAL
JUDGE
14. 3.08