[2008] KEHC 2482 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 2482 (KLR)

The court held that the consent order of 9th October, 2007 was clear and only required the respondent's advocates to withhold the sum of KShs. 15,152,975/00 until the initial taxation of the applicant's bill of costs. Once taxation occurred on 30th November, 2007, the advocates were justified in releasing the funds...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 2482 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Francis Mwanza Mulwa (Practising as F.M. Mulwa, Advocate); Respondent: Chakama Ranching Co. Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? l595 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Post Taxation Application for Deposit of Funds
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
DW Mbuteti
Legal Topics
Advocate Client Costs, Security for Costs, Consent Orders, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Advocate Client Costs Security for Costs Consent Orders Taxation of Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Mwanza Mulwa (Practising as F.M. Mulwa, Advocate)

Applicant

Chakama Ranching Co. Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Post Taxation Application for Deposit of Funds

  1. 1 Whether the consent order of 9th October, 2007 required funds to be held pending re-taxation of the applicant's bill of costs.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's advocates were justified in releasing the funds after initial taxation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's application to compel deposit of funds is an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the consent order of 9th October, 2007 was clear and only required the respondent's advocates to withhold the sum of KShs. 15,152,975/00 until the initial taxation of the applicant's bill of costs. Once taxation occurred on 30th November, 2007, the advocates were justified in releasing the funds to the respondent. The order did not contemplate retention of the funds pending any subsequent re-taxation. The applicant's failure to prosecute his earlier application to vary the consent order and his subsequent attempt to relitigate the issue amounted to an abuse of the court process. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 12th May, 2008 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.