[2018] KEELRC 2229 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent did not dispute the retainer, the taxation of the bill of costs, or the amount due. The only issues raised were procedural and on the applicable interest rate. The respondent failed to cite any statutory or case law to support her contention that the application should have been...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 2229 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Henry Athimbu Kurauka; Respondent: Celestine Mwenda Munene
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 153 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed with modification
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Interest on Judgment Debt
- 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
Henry Athimbu Kurauka
Applicant
Celestine Mwenda Munene
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment for the taxed costs as against the respondent.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum or at court rates.
- 3 Whether the application was properly brought by motion instead of plaint or statement of claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent did not dispute the retainer, the taxation of the bill of costs, or the amount due. The only issues raised were procedural and on the applicable interest rate. The respondent failed to cite any statutory or case law to support her contention that the application should have been brought by plaint or statement of claim. The court held that the application by motion was proper under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, which allows for entry of judgment on a certificate of taxation. On the issue of interest, the court exercised its discretion and awarded interest at 12% per annum from the date of taxation, rather than the 14% sought by the applicant or the...
Court Disposition
application allowed with modification
Orders
- Judgment entered in favour of the applicant for Kshs 240,520.
- Interest awarded at 12% per annum from the date of taxation until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 153 OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES ACT CAP 16 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA
HENRY ATHIMBU KURAUKA ADVOCATE/APPLICANT
v
CELESTINE MWENDA MUNENE RESPONDENT
AND
ELRC CAUSE NO. 2365 OF 2012 (NAIROBI)
KURAUKA & CO. ADVOCATES ADVOCATE/APPLICANT
v
CELESTINE MWENDA MUNENE CLIENT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Through a motion filed in Court on 31 October 2017, Kurauka & Co. Advocates seeks orders
a) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to enter judgment in favour of the Applicant herein for a sum of Kenya Shillings Two Hundred and Forty Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty Shillings (Kshs. 240,520/=)only.
b) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to order that the said sum of Kenya Shillings Two Hundred and Forty Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty Shillings (Kshs. 240,520/=) above do attract interest at 14% per annum from the date of taxation until payment in full.
2. Despite being served with the application, the Respondent did not file any response. The Court however allowed her to make oral arguments.
3. The applicant firm acted for the Respondent and later on it filed an advocate/client bill of costs which was taxed on 28 September 2016 at Kshs 240,520/-.
4. According to the applicant, the Respondent has failed to pay the costs as taxed. It now seeks an order compelling payment.
5. The Respondent did not deny that she owed the applicant the taxed costs.
6. Her grouse was that the applicant approached the Court using an improper route.
7. Instead of a Motion, she contended that the applicant ought to have moved the Court through a Plaint or Statement of Claim.
8. The Respondent did not draw the attention of the Court to any statutory or legal provision for the submission. She did not cite any case law on the subject of approaching the Court.
9. The Respondent further asserted that interest should be at Court rates and not 14%.
10. The Respondent was fully aware of the applicant’s case against her and did not present any plausible reason why she had failed to pay for the work done or why the Court should not allow the application.
11. She did not dispute that she retained the applicant. She equally did not dispute that the applicant presented an advocate/client bill of costs for taxation and that the bill was taxed and a certificate issued by the Taxing Officer.
12. The application is allowed save that interest will be at 12% from date of taxation.
13. Applicant to have costs of the application.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nairobi on this 9th day of March 2018.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Applicant Mr. Kurauka instructed by Kurauka & Co. Advocates
For Respondent Mr. Ogwe instructed by T.T. Nganga & Associates Advocates
Court Assistant Lindsey