[2020] KEHC 5950 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to participate in the taxation process but failed to do so. The applicant's delay in seeking to object to the taxed costs was not justified, and the right to fair administrative action was not violated. Since judgment and an order of mandamus for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 5950 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: James Aggrey Mwamu t/a Mwamu & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Migori County Assembly
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Case 306 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time to File Notice of Objection to Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Enlargement of Time, Advocate Client Relationship
- 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
James Aggrey Mwamu t/a Mwamu & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Migori County Assembly
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time to File Notice of Objection to Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted enlargement of time to file a notice of objection to the taxed costs.
- 2 Whether the applicant's right to fair administrative action was violated during the taxation process.
- 3 Whether the absence of an advocate/client relationship invalidates the taxed costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to participate in the taxation process but failed to do so. The applicant's delay in seeking to object to the taxed costs was not justified, and the right to fair administrative action was not violated. Since judgment and an order of mandamus for payment of the taxed costs had already been issued and were unchallenged, granting an extension of time to file a notice of objection would serve no practical purpose. The application for enlargement of time was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 19th November 2019 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISUMU
MISC. CIVIL CASE NO. 306 OF 2015
JAMES AGGREY MWAMUT/A MWAMU & CO. ADVOCATES ...APPLICANT/RESPONDENT
-VERSUS-
MIGORI COUNTY ASSEMBLY...............................................................RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
RULING
The application dated 19th November 2019 seeks the enlargement of time, to enable the Applicant, MIGORI COUNTY ASSEMBLY, lodge a Notice of Objection to the taxed costs.
1. It is common ground that the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs, as between the Respondent, JAMES AGGREY MWAMU T/A MWAMU & COMPANY ADVOCATES, and the Applicant, was taxed on 22nd May 2018.
2. Following the taxation, the learned taxing officer awarded to the Respondent, the sum of Kshs 1,290,257/96.
3. As conceded by the Applicant, this application was brought after the lapse of one-and-a-half years, from the time when the costs were taxed.
4. The Applicant explained the delay by saying that the period was spent in
“consultation between the Assembly andthe Execution (sic!), on which organ oughtto have taken up the Reference in view ofthe colossal sum.”
5. It was the contention of the Applicant that there was no Advocate/Client relationship between it and the Respondent.
6. If it is only the County Assembly Service Board that has the statutory mandate to procure goods and services on behalf of the Applicant, and if the Applicant never issued instructions to the Respondent, that would have been a sound foundation upon which the Applicant could have raised objections to the Bill of Costs.
7. However, although the Applicant was served with the Bill of Costs, as well as with a Notice of Taxation, it failed to utilize the opportunity available to it.
8. The Applicant also submitted that the taxed costs were manifestly excessive.
9. The reason why the Applicant was served with the Notice of Taxation was that the Notice accorded it an opportunity to make submissions during the process of the taxation. Having chosen to stay away from the process, which was available to it, the Applicant cannot now be heard to complain about a decision which it made a choice not to have any role in.
10. The Respondent and the Court gave to the Applicant an opportunity to attend the process.
11. Neither the Court nor the Respondent could compel the Applicant to attend either the process of taxation or the hearing of the application through which the Respondent asked the court to grant judgment in terms of the taxed costs.
12. Fair Administrative Action connotes the giving of an opportunity to be heard before the adjudicating body renders its determination.
13. I find that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that its right to Fair Administrative Action was violated.
14. The court has already granted Judgment in favour of the Respondent. And, indeed, the Respondent commenced execution proceedings.
15. On 20th February 2020, Hon. Lady Justice T.W. Cherere issued an Order of Mandamus, compelling the Clerk, Migori County Assembly to pay to the Respondent, the decretal amount of Kshs 1,290,256/96. That order was made in Judicial Review Cause No. 13 of 2019.
16. Neither the Judgment herein nor the Orders made on 20th February 2020 have been challenged by the Applicant.
17. I therefore find that if the Applicant were granted an extension of time to lodge a Notice of Objection to the taxed costs, such an order would be in vain, as it cannot countermand either the Judgment or the Order of Mandamus.
18. Accordingly, the application dated 19th November 2019 is dismissed, with costs to the Respondent.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at KISUMUThis29thday ofApril2020
FRED A. OCHIENG
JUDGE