[2020] KEHC 9714 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's bill of costs had been taxed and a certificate of taxation issued, which had not been set aside or challenged as required under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The respondent's challenge based on lack of retainer was not raised in accordance with the prescribed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 9714 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Githinji, Kimamo & Co Advocates; Respondent: Endmor Steel Millers Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 98 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment Following Taxation of Advocate's Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Relationship, 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
Githinji, Kimamo & Co Advocates
Applicant
Endmor Steel Millers Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment Following Taxation of Advocate's Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment for the taxed costs against the respondent.
- 2 Whether interest at 14% per annum is payable from the date of taxation as claimed by the applicant.
- 3 Whether the respondent's opposition based on lack of retainer and procedural defects has merit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's bill of costs had been taxed and a certificate of taxation issued, which had not been set aside or challenged as required under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The respondent's challenge based on lack of retainer was not raised in accordance with the prescribed procedure and was therefore not a valid ground to oppose the application. The court held that under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the certificate of taxation is final as to the amount due, and the applicant is entitled to judgment for the certified sum. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant was entitled to claim interest at 14% per annum from one month after the date...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Judgment is entered for the applicant against the respondent for Ksh.34,536.38 together with interest at 14% per annum from 25th October, 2018 until payment in full.
- The applicant is at liberty to execute against the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
HIGH COURT CIVIL MISC APPL. NO. 98 OF 2018
GITHINJI, KIMAMO & CO ADVOCATES...............APPLICANT
VERSUS
ENDMOR STEEL MILLERS LIMITED................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application dated 20th August, 2019 principally seeks the following orders:
1. That judgment be entered for the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Ksh.34,536. 38/= together with interest thereon at 14% per annum from 25th October, 2018 until payment in full.
2. That the Applicant be at liberty to execute against the Respondent.
3. That costs of this application be borne by the Respondent.
2. It is stated that the Bill of Costs herein was taxed at Ksh.34,536. 38 and a Certificate Taxation issued. That the Certificate of Taxation has not been set aside or varied but the Respondent has failed to settle the same.
3. The application is opposed as per the grounds of opposition dated 19th September, 2019 which states as follows:
“1. The application is a blatant and egregious abuse of the court process and is only meant to circumvent justice.
2. That the Applicant’s motion seeks interest at 14% from the date of taxation despite the fact that Section 51(2) of the Act makes express provision on interest; that if there is any entitlement on interest under Section 51(2), the same should be at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of delivery of the taxed Bill to the client.
3. The application is devoid of any merit and misconceived.
4. The Applicant ought to file a fresh suit if at all since retainer has always been disputed.
5. The application is frivolous, vexatious and fatally defective.
6. That the Application has no legal basis.
7. That the Application is fundamentally and incurably defective.”
4. I have considered the application, the response and the submissions filed by the respective counsel for the parties.
5. The uncontroverted evidence that the Bill of Cost was taxed and the Certificate of Costs issued is supported by the record. On the ground of opposition raised that there was no retainer, the taxation was not challenged as envisaged under rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
6. Section 51 (2) of Advocate Act Cap 16 Laws of Kenya provides as follows:
“(2) The certificate of the taxing officer by whom any bill has been taxed shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the Court, be final as to the amount of the costs covered thereby, and the Court may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including, in a case where the retainer is not disputed, an order that judgment be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.”
7. Rule No. 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Orders reads as follows:
“An advocate may charge interest at 14% 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 in full.”
8. The Applicant herein as claimed 14% interest from 25th October, 2018 when the costs were taxed. The record shows that the Respondent’s Advocate had filed a Notice of Appointment herein on 11th July, 2018. The Applicant’s claim for interest is therefore merited.
9. With the foregoing, I allow the application as prayed.
Dated, signed and delivered in Nairobi this 29th day of May, 2020
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE