[2017] KEHC 6868 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 6868 (KLR)

The court held that section 48(3) of the Advocates Act expressly allows an advocate to tax a bill of costs against a client without the necessity of filing a substantive suit for recovery of costs. The respondent's reliance on section 49 was misplaced, as section 48(3) provides a clear exception to the requirement...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 6868 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Gideon Ongono Barongo T/A Barongo Ombasa Advocate; Respondent: Jiangxi Zhongmei Engineering Construction & Co. Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 51 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the applicant
Judges
HK Chemitei
Legal Topics
Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Preliminary Objection, Advocates Act Interpretation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Advocate Client Costs Taxation of Costs Preliminary Objection Advocates Act Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gideon Ongono Barongo T/A Barongo Ombasa Advocate

Applicant

Jiangxi Zhongmei Engineering Construction & Co. Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether an advocate must file a substantive suit by plaint under section 49 of the Advocates Act to recover costs from a client.
  2. 2 Whether an advocate can tax a bill of costs under section 48(3) of the Advocates Act without filing a suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 48(3) of the Advocates Act expressly allows an advocate to tax a bill of costs against a client without the necessity of filing a substantive suit for recovery of costs. The respondent's reliance on section 49 was misplaced, as section 48(3) provides a clear exception to the requirement for a suit. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent was without merit and was dismissed with costs to the applicant.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the applicant

Orders

  • The preliminary objection dated 11/9/2015 is dismissed with costs to the applicant.