[2008] KEHC 1785 (KLR)
The court held that since the certificate of taxation issued to the applicant advocate had not been set aside or altered, and there was no dispute as to the retainer, the amount certified was final as to the costs due. The respondent did not oppose the application or contest the retainer. Therefore, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 1785 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Gitonga Kithinji t/a Gitonga Muriuki & Co. Advocates; Respondent: William Muchoki Ngothi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 266 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Judgment entered for the applicant for the taxed sum and costs of the application.
- Judges
- AT Sitati
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Certificate of Taxation, Judgment Entry 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
Gitonga Kithinji t/a Gitonga Muriuki & Co. Advocates
Applicant
William Muchoki Ngothi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should enter judgment for the applicant advocate for the taxed costs as per the certificate of taxation.
- 2 Whether the certificate of taxation is final and conclusive as to the amount due where it has not been set aside or altered.
- 3 Whether the retainer between the advocate and client is disputed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the certificate of taxation issued to the applicant advocate had not been set aside or altered, and there was no dispute as to the retainer, the amount certified was final as to the costs due. The respondent did not oppose the application or contest the retainer. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act to enter judgment for the applicant for the taxed sum and awarded costs of the application as well.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Judgment entered for the applicant for the taxed sum and costs of the application.
Orders
- Judgment is entered for the applicant advocate in the sum of Kshs. 37,890 all inclusive.
- The applicant shall have the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Misc. Application 266 of 2007
GITONGA KITHINJI ta/GITONGA MURIUKI & CO. ADVOCATES……………………….APPLICANT
VERSUS
WILLIAM MUCHOKI NGOTHI……………...…………………..RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The instant application dated 18/12/2007 is filed by an advocate under the provisions of section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules by which he seeks that Judgment be entered for the applicant as against the respondent for the sum of Kshs.37890/= being the taxed costs. The applicant also prays for costs of the application. The reasons for the application are that the Bill of costs was taxed on 9/10/2007 and a ruling delivered in favour of the applicant for Kshs.37890/= and further that neither the taxation not the certificate of taxation have been altered, varied or set aside and finally that the certificate of taxation is final as to the amount due and owed by the Respondent to the applicant.
2. The application is also supported by the sworn affidavit of Gitonga Kithinji Muriuki, advocate, who says that his firm was instructed to represent the respondent on serious criminal charges preferred against him of abducting a minor child (Njeri Kimani) and that though he (advocate) attended court twice to represent him, the respondent did not pay any single cent towards the representation despite his (respondent’s) many promises to do so. That consequently the advocate filed his bill of costs which was taxed on 9/10/2007 for Kshs.37890/= as per the annexture marked “GKM1”.
3. The application was duly served upon the respondent on the 01/03/2008 but he did not file any Replying Affidavit or grounds in opposition to the application. He also did not turn up for the hearing on 9/04/2008. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act provides as follows:?
“51(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.”
4. The issue that arises is whether the court should exercise its discretion to enter judgment for the applicant as prayed. After carefully considering the provisions of the law, and especially sections 51(2) and 48 of the Advocates Act, and in light of the persuasive authority in the case of Sharma –vs- Uhuru Highway Development Ltd [2001]2 EA 530, I am satisfied that I should grant the application. In the first place, there is no contention about the retainer in this case. It is also not in dispute that the Certificate of Taxation issued on 30/10/2007 has neither been set aside nor altered by the court and I am thus satisfied that the amount as shown in the Certificate of Taxation is final as to the amount of the costs covered thereby.
5. In the result, I allow the application and enter judgment for the advocate in the sum of Kshs.37890/= all inclusive. The applicant shall also have the costs of this application.
6. It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 23rd day of May 2008.
R.N.S. SITATI
JUDGE