[2022] KEHC 13614 (KLR)
The court found that the advocate/client bill of costs could not be taxed because the applicant failed to provide the correct lower court file evidencing the legal services rendered. The file cited by the applicant did not relate to the parties in this matter, and the applicant failed to comply with the deputy...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 13614 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Geoffrey, Yogo & Erick Ojuro t/a Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Dominion Farms Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Case E049 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Advocate/client Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- bill of costs struck out; file closed
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Bill of Costs, Taxation Procedure
- 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
Geoffrey, Yogo & Erick Ojuro t/a Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Dominion Farms Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Advocate/client Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there is a proper advocate/client bill of costs before the court for taxation.
- 2 Whether the applicant provided the correct lower court file to support the bill of costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the advocate/client bill of costs could not be taxed because the applicant failed to provide the correct lower court file evidencing the legal services rendered. The file cited by the applicant did not relate to the parties in this matter, and the applicant failed to comply with the deputy registrar's direction to file a proper bill of costs with the correct particulars. As a result, there was no proper bill before the court for taxation, warranting the striking out of the bill and closure of the file.
Court Disposition
bill of costs struck out; file closed
Orders
- The advocate/client bill of costs dated December 15, 2021 is struck out for want of proper particulars.
- File No Siaya PMCC 53/2014 to be returned to the lower court forthwith.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Geoffrey, Yogo & Erick Ojuro t/a Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co. Advocates (T/A OTIENO, YOGO, OJURO & CO. ADVOCATES) v Dominion Farms Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Case E049 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 13614 (KLR) (4 October 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 13614 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Siaya
Miscellaneous Civil Case E049 of 2021
RE Aburili, J
October 4, 2022
Between
Geoffrey, Yogo & Erick Ojuro t/a Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co. Advocates
Applicant
T/A OTIENO, YOGO, OJURO & CO. ADVOCATES
and
Dominion Farms Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. This matter was originated by an advocate/client bill of costs dated December 15, 2021 filed on December 21, 2021 by the firm of Otieno Yogo, Ojuro Advocates against Dominion Farms LTD as the client. However, from the record, the deputy registrar of this court has been unable to tax the bill of costs for reasons that the court file that was cited as the file where the advocate rendered legal services to the client cannot be traced from the lower court, I say 'cannot be traced' because the cited file to this court is Siaya PMCC No 53/2014 James Obara Otwera Vs Dominion Farms Limited.
2. However, when the deputy registrar called for the cited file, which is Siaya PMCC No 53 of 2014, the file that was availed to her for purposes of perusal and verification of the legal services allegedly rendered by the advocate to his client has different parties in the name of Gordon Oginga Abwao (suing as legal representative of the Estate of Everlyne Anyango Okumu) versus Peter Amakoha, Justus Musila and Meshack Ayumba. The advocates in that case are totally different from the applicant herein.
3. The deputy registrar then directed the applicants’ counsel Ms Anyango, on April 20, 2022 to file a proper bill of costs containing the correct lower court file within 14 days but todate, nothing has been done.
4. The deputy registrar placed this file before me for appropriate directions.
5. Having considered the above stated circumstances, it is clear that there is no proper bill placed or filed before this court for taxation by the deputy registrar, there being no relevant court file in which the alleged legal services were rendered by the applicant/advocates.
6. For the above reasons, I hereby strike out the advocate/client bill of costs dated December 15, 2021 for want of proper particulars and close this file.
7. The file No Siaya PMCC 53/2014 to be returned to the lower court forthwith.
8. This file is hereby closed.
9. I so order.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA THIS 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022. R.E. ABURILIJUDGE