[2012] KEHC 4333 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established its claim for taxed costs as evidenced by the certificate of taxation, which is final and conclusive under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. The respondent was duly served but did not contest the application, file any response, or appear at the hearing. There was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 4333 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Iseme Kamau & Maema & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Concord Insurance Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 116 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Unopposed Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- Judgment entered for the applicant as prayed; respondent to pay taxed costs and costs of the application.
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Certificate of Taxation, Execution of Judgment
- 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
Iseme Kamau & Maema & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Concord Insurance Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Unopposed Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment on the basis of a certificate of taxation under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
- 2 Whether the respondent has contested the retainer or the certificate of taxation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established its claim for taxed costs as evidenced by the certificate of taxation, which is final and conclusive under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. The respondent was duly served but did not contest the application, file any response, or appear at the hearing. There was no dispute as to the retainer or the amount taxed. Accordingly, the court entered judgment in favour of the applicant for the amount set out in the certificate of taxation, together with costs of the application.
Court Disposition
Judgment entered for the applicant as prayed; respondent to pay taxed costs and costs of the application.
Orders
- Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant for Kshs.80,138.00 as set out in the certificate of taxation.
- The applicant is at liberty to execute against the respondent upon the said certificate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
[if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\"; mso-style-parent:\"\"; font-size:11. 0pt;\"Calibri\",\"sans-serif\"; mso-fareast-\"Times New Roman\"; mso-bidi-\"Times New Roman\";} </style> <![endif]
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT NAKURU
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 116 OF 2011
ISEME KAMAU & MAEMA & CO. ADV…...……..APPLICANT
VERSUS
CONCORD INSURANCE CO. LTD………….…..DEFENDANT
RULING
Iseme Kamau and Maema & Co. Advocates pray for judgment to be entered in their favour for Kshs.80,138. 00 as set out in the Certificate of Taxation issued by the taxing officer of this court on 22/6/2011 and that the applicant be at liberty to execute against the respondent upon the said certificate. The application is brought against Concord Insurance Company, the respondent herein, who gave the applicant instructions to defend its insured in an injury claim in RMCC 592/02 (Naivasha), Elijah Isioye Okemwa V Sher Agencies Ltd. The applicant filed appearance and defence in the said suit and it was eventually dismissed. The respondent has failed to pay the applicants fees following which the applicant filed a Bill of Costs in NKU HC 116/2011 which was taxed on 17/6/2011 and a certificate of costs on 22/6/2011 indebted to the applicant. Karen Mate further deponed that the Certificate of Taxation is final in accordance with Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and that the retainer between the applicant and respondent is not contested.
This application was served on the respondent on 3/3/2012 as evidenced by affidavit of service sworn by Vihaki Armstone on 7/5/2012. The respondent acknowledged service by stamping on the notice of motion. The respondent did not file any reply to the motion nor was there appearance at the hearing of the application. The Notice of Motion is not contested and I therefore enter judgment in favour of the applicant as prayed, against the respondent in terms of prayers 1 and 2 of the Notice of Motion. The applicant will also have costs of the application.
DATED and DELIVERED this 14th day of May, 2012.
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
PRESENT:
Ms Maija holding brief for Ms Mate for the applicant
N/A for the respondent
Kennedy – Court Clerk