[2024] KEHC 5122 (KLR)
The court declined to adopt the Certificate of Costs as a judgment because there was no evidence of a retainer, no case number or details of the suit in which the advocate was instructed, and no proof that the services claimed were actually rendered. The Taxing Officer did not examine or reference the relevant case...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 5122 (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 Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application E028 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Adoption of Certificate of Costs as Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; certificate of costs and taxation set aside; matter remitted for fresh taxation.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bill of Costs, Certificate of Costs, Judgment Entry, Retainer Agreement
- 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 Application for Adoption of Certificate of Costs as Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Certificate of Costs dated 9th December 2022 should be adopted as a judgment of the court.
- 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence of retainer and proper instructions to the advocate for the alleged services.
- 3 Whether the taxation process and the Bill of Costs were properly supported by evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to adopt the Certificate of Costs as a judgment because there was no evidence of a retainer, no case number or details of the suit in which the advocate was instructed, and no proof that the services claimed were actually rendered. The Taxing Officer did not examine or reference the relevant case file, and the basis for the instruction fees was not substantiated. The court found that the taxation process was fundamentally flawed and could not form the basis for a valid judgment. Consequently, the certificate of costs and the underlying taxation were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh taxation before the Deputy Registrar, with directions to ensure proper...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; certificate of costs and taxation set aside; matter remitted for fresh taxation.
Orders
- The application for adoption of the Certificate of Costs dated 9th December 2022 as judgment is declined.
- The taxation and Certificate of Costs dated 9th December 2022 are set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Geoffrey Yogo & Erick Ojuro T/A Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co. Advocates v Dominion Farms Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Application E028 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 5122 (KLR) (9 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 5122 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Civil Application E028 of 2022
RE Aburili, J
May 9, 2024
Between
Geoffrey Yogo & Erick Ojuro T/A Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co. Advocates
Applicant
and
Dominion Farms Limited
Respondent
(Arising from the professional legal services rendered by the Applicant/Advocate to the Respondent/client in Dominion Farms Limited vs Charles Onyango Okumu, James Odhiambo Okumu & Wilson Odhiambo Mlama)
Ruling
1. The application dated 24th March 2023 seeks for adoption of the Certificate of Costs dated 9th December 2022 as Judgment/Decree of this court. It is not opposed.
2. I have considered the application, certificate of costs and the proceedings leading to the taxation.
3. I have also considered the Bill of Costs dated 17th December 2021 as filed.
4. I decline to adopt the Certificate of Costs as judgment of this court for the following reasons:-1. There is no case number given in which the advocate was instructed to institute suit for trespass against the Defendants. Only names of parties are given.
2. There is no evidence that the advocate was retained to act for the client and whether the cause of action was for trespass and therefore the basis for Kshs.200,000 as instruction fees.
3. There is no evidence that the Taxing officer ever saw or examined the unnamed case file and in which court it was lodged, and whether the services allegedly rendered by the advocate were indeed rendered to warrant the Bill of Costs.
5. This court is not a rubber stamp of erroneous court processes.
6. In my view, there is no basis upon which the Taxing Master found the Bill of Costs dated 17th December 2021 as taxed for being to scale.
7. I decline to enter judgment in terms of the Certificate of Costs dated 9th December 2022.
8. I hereby set aside that faulty taxation together with the certificate of costs and remit the file to the Deputy Registrar of this court to retax the Bill afresh upon satisfying herself that the Respondent is duly served with the Bill and Notice of taxation; and taking into account the observations made in this brief Ruling.
9. Mention before the Deputy Registrar on 20th June, 2024. I so order.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kisumu this 9th Day of May, 2024R. E. ABURILIJUDGEPage 2 of 2