[2013] KEHC 1255 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's bill of costs had been taxed and certified at Kshs. 3,909,485/- and that the certificate of taxation had not been set aside or reviewed. The application was properly brought under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, and the applicant was entitled to judgment for the certified...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 1255 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Francis Mwanza Mulwa (Practising as F.M Mulwa, advocate); Respondent: Francis Mburu Mungai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 196 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Advocate's Application for Judgment on Certified Costs
- Outcome
- Application allowed; judgment entered for the applicant for the certified costs, interest awarded, and costs of the application granted.
- Judges
- REA Ougo
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Remuneration, Taxation of Costs, 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
Francis Mwanza Mulwa (Practising as F.M Mulwa, advocate)
Applicant
Francis Mburu Mungai
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Advocate's Application for Judgment on Certified Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment for the certified costs as taxed and certified by the court.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum on the certified costs from the date specified until payment in full.
- 3 Whether the respondent should pay the costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's bill of costs had been taxed and certified at Kshs. 3,909,485/- and that the certificate of taxation had not been set aside or reviewed. The application was properly brought under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, and the applicant was entitled to judgment for the certified sum. Additionally, under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, the applicant was entitled to interest at 14% per annum from 8th February 2007 until payment in full, as the claim for interest was made before payment. The respondent did not oppose the application. The court therefore granted all the prayers sought by the applicant.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; judgment entered for the applicant for the certified costs, interest awarded, and costs of the application granted.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the applicant against the respondent for Kshs. 3,909,585/-.
- The respondent to pay interest on the certified costs at 14% per annum from 8th February 2007 until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.196 OF 2007
FRANCIS MWANZA MULWA(Practising as F.M Mulwa,advocate ......APPLICANT
VERSUS
FRANCIS MBURU MUNGAI...................................................................... RESPONDENT
RULING
Before me is a Notice of Motion filed by the advocate/applicant. The motion is brought under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Chapter 6 of the Laws of Kenya, Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) order and also all enabling provisions of the law. The applicant seeks orders that;
That judgment be entered for the applicant as against the respondent for the sum of Kshs.3,909,585/- being the certified costs due to the applicant.
That the respondent do pay to the applicant interest on the certified costs at the rate of 14% per annum from the 8th day of February 2007 until payment in full.
That the respondent do pay to the applicant cost of the application.
The application is based on grounds (a) to (e) stated on the face of the application which give grounds on why the application should be granted. The application is also supported by the annexed affidavit of Francis Mwanza Mulwa.
When this matter came up for hearing counsel for the respondent/client stated that they have not filed any document and that they left it to the court to decide.
The application therefore is not opposed. I have considered what has been presented by the applicant herein. It is evident then the bill of costs that was lodged by F. M. Mulwa advocate the applicant was taxed on the 26/11/12 at a sum of Kshs.3909485/-. There is the certificate of taxation dated 23/11/12 that is attached to the applicants affidavit.
There is also the letter dated 8/1/07 forwarding the advocate’s fee note. I note that the certificate of taxation has not been set aside valid or reviewed.
The application has been properly brought under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. Rule 7 of the Advocates remuneration order states;
“An advocate may charge interest at 14 percent per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, providing such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered full’
I find that the advocate/applicant application has merit. The application is not opposed. I therefore grant prayers no. 1, 2 and 3 of the application dated the 14/3/13.
Dated, signed and delivered this 28th Day of October 2013.
R. E. OUGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Wanjohi holding brief for the applicant
…………………………………………….for the respondent court
…………………………………………………………….………Clerk