[2020] KEHC 9732 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 9732 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's Bill of Costs had been taxed at Ksh.57,440 and a certificate of taxation issued, which had not been set aside or varied. The respondent did not challenge the taxation as required under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, and the alleged dispute as to retainer was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 9732 (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 88 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
BT Jaden
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Certificate of Costs, Interest on Costs, Advocate Client Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Certificate of Costs Interest on Costs Advocate Client Disputes

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Githinji, Kimamo & Co Advocates

Applicant

Endmor Steel Millers Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment for the taxed costs as per the certificate of taxation.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum from the date of service of the bill of costs.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's opposition based on alleged dispute of retainer is valid in the absence of a challenge under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's Bill of Costs had been taxed at Ksh.57,440 and a certificate of taxation issued, which had not been set aside or varied. The respondent did not challenge the taxation as required under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, and the alleged dispute as to retainer was not substantiated in the proper manner. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act empowers the court to enter judgment for the certified sum where retainer is not disputed. Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order entitles the advocate to interest at 14% per annum from one month after delivery of the bill. The court therefore allowed the application, granting judgment for the taxed sum...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the applicant against the respondent for Ksh.57,440 with interest at 14% per annum from 25th October, 2018 until payment in full.
  • The applicant is at liberty to execute against the respondent.