[2008] KEHC 3295 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's bill of costs had been taxed by consent and a certificate of taxation issued for KShs.300,111/=. The respondent had not challenged, appealed, or sought to set aside the taxation or the certificate. The grounds of opposition filed by the respondent were struck out for procedural...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 3295 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Enonda, Makoloo Makori & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Edna S. Ouma
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 160 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed; judgment entered for applicant for certified taxed costs, interest, and costs of the application.
- Judges
- AT Sitati
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Judgment on Certified 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
Enonda, Makoloo Makori & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Edna S. Ouma
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered for the applicant for the certified taxed costs as per the certificate of taxation.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest at 12% per annum from 17th October 2005.
- 3 Whether the respondent has challenged or set aside the certificate of taxation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's bill of costs had been taxed by consent and a certificate of taxation issued for KShs.300,111/=. The respondent had not challenged, appealed, or sought to set aside the taxation or the certificate. The grounds of opposition filed by the respondent were struck out for procedural non-compliance, and neither the respondent nor her counsel appeared at the hearing. In the absence of any valid opposition and in light of the finality accorded to a certificate of taxation under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the court held that the applicant was entitled to judgment for the certified sum, interest at 12% per annum from 17th October 2005, and costs of the...
Court Disposition
application allowed; judgment entered for applicant for certified taxed costs, interest, and costs of the application.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the applicant against the respondent for KShs.300,111/= as certified by the Deputy Registrar.
- Applicant awarded interest at 12% per annum from 17th October 2005.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 160 of 2004
ENONDA, MAKOLOO MAKORI & CO. ADVOCATES……………….………….APPLICANT/ADVOCATE
VERSUS
EDNA S.OUMA…………………………..................................................................….RESPONDENT/CLIENT
RULING OF THE COURT
1. The application coming up for hearing is a Notice of Motion dated 20th November 2007 brought under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Act (sic). The application seeks the following orders:-
(i) THAT judgment be entered for the applicant against the respondent for the sum of Kenya Shillings Three Hundred Thousand One Hundred and Eleven (KShs.300,111/=) being the amount certified to be due by the Deputy Registrar of this Honourable Court on 17th March 2006.
(ii) THAT the applicant be awarded interest at 12 per cent per annum from 17th October 2005.
(iii) THAT costs of this application be awarded to the applicant.
2. The application is premised on four brief grounds on the face thereof:-
(a) THAT the bill of costs herein was on 17th March 2007 taxed by consent before the Deputy Registrar in the sum of Kenya Shillings Three Hundred Thousand One Hundred and Eleven (KShs.300,111/=) in favour of the applicant.
(b) THAT the certificate of taxation is dated 17th March 2007.
(c) THAT neither the said taxation nor the certificate of taxation has been altered varied or set aside.
(d) THAT this honourable court has jurisdiction to make the orders sought.
3. The application is also supported by the sworn affidavit of ENONDA A. M. DICKSON dated 20th November 2007. From the said affidavit the following facts emerge:-
(a) That the applicants were duly instructed by the respondent to act for her in a Tenancy Contract Matter.
(b) That the respondent withdrew her instructions from the applicant on 1st November 2005.
(c) That on 11th January 2006, the applicants lodged an Advocate/Client Bill of costs for taxation and that the said Bill of Costs was taxed by consent of the parties on 17th March 2006 in favour of the applicants against the respondent in the sum of KShs.300,111/= as per annexure marked “EAMD1” being Certificate of Taxation.
(d) That the respondent has failed to pay the said sum of KShs.300,111/= despite demand letters sent to her by the applicants on 22nd June 2006, 5th July 2006 and 2nd August 2007 respectively. (see annexture marked “EAMD2”.
(e) That no appeal or application to alter, vary or set aside the said taxation has been made by the respondent or any of the parties herein.
4. The applicant asks the court to exercise the powers conferred upon it by the provisions of section 51(2) of the Advocate’s Act and grant the orders sought. The relevant subsection provides as follows:-
“52(2) The certificate of the taxing officer by whom any bill has been taxed shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the court, be final as to the amount of the costs covered thereby, and the court may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including, as in a case where the retainer is not disputed, an order that judgment be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.”
5. The application is opposed, but only feebly so. The grounds in opposition thereto were filed on 12th February 2008. The filing of the said grounds on the eve of the hearing of the application was in contravention of the provisions of Order 50 Rule 16(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Neither the respondent nor her counsel were present at the hearing of the application though counsel was duly served with the hearing notice on the 30th January 2008. The grounds of opposition as filed are hereby struck out for non-compliance with Order 50 Rule 16(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
6. In essence therefore the application remains uncontested. In my view, the applicants have demonstrated that they are entitled to the orders sought and accordingly, I allow the application and make the following orders;-
(a) THAT judgment be and is hereby entered for the applicants against the respondent for the sum of Kenya Shillings Three Hundred Thousand One Hundred and Eleven (KShs.300,111/=) being the amount certified to be due by the Deputy Registrar of this Honourable Court on 17th March 2006.
(b) THAT the applicants be and are hereby awarded interest at 12 per cent per annum from 17th October 2005.
(c) THAT the costs of this application be and are hereby awarded to the applicants.
7. It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 21st day of February 2008.
R. N. Sitati
Judge