[2002] KEHC 110 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had instructed the firm of Kipkenda Chebet & Co. Advocates, not C.J. Chebet & Co. Advocates. The latter firm was formed after the instructions were given and was not a party to the contract between the applicant and the original firm. As such, C.J. Chebet & Co. Advocates had no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 110 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: James C. Chebet; Defendant: Savings & Loan Kenya Ltd.
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 599 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Chamber Summons to Set Aside Taxation of Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- T Mbaluto
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Relationship, Remuneration Order, Setting Aside Orders
- 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 C. Chebet
Plaintiff
Savings & Loan Kenya Ltd.
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Chamber Summons to Set Aside Taxation of Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the firm of C.J. Chebet & Co. Advocates had authority or instructions from the applicant to act and file a bill of costs against the applicant.
- 2 Whether the taxation of the bill of costs by the taxing officer was valid in the absence of a contractual relationship between the applicant and the respondent firm.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had instructed the firm of Kipkenda Chebet & Co. Advocates, not C.J. Chebet & Co. Advocates. The latter firm was formed after the instructions were given and was not a party to the contract between the applicant and the original firm. As such, C.J. Chebet & Co. Advocates had no authority to file a bill of costs against the applicant. The taxation of the bill of costs by the taxing officer was therefore a nullity, as it was based on a non-existent advocate-client relationship. The application to set aside the taxation was allowed, and the purported bill of costs was declared null and void.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The taxation of the respondent's bill of costs made on 12.2.2002 is set aside.
- The ruling of the taxing officer dated 29.11.2001 is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS
MISC. CIVIL CASE NO. 599 OF 2001
JAMES C. CHEBET ………………………………… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SAVINGS & LOAN KENYA LTD. ………………… DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
By this Chamber Summons application brought pursuant to paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Savings & Loan Kenya Limited (the Applicant) seeks to set aside;
(a) The taxation of the Respondents Bill of costs made on 12. 2.2002,
(b) the Ruling of the taxing officer dated 29. 11. 2001 and the
(c) the Respondents Notice of Motion dated 24. 10. 2001.
The application is supported by an affidavit sworn on 25. 2.2002 by the applicants Manager at its Salama House Branch and is based on the contention that the Respondent firm which purported to file the Bill of Costs for taxation before the taxing officer had not in the first place received any instruction from the applicant to act for it in connection with the matter. For that reason, the applicant asserts that the taxing officer erred in taxing the Respondent alleged bill against it.
Although the Respondent firm of Advocates M/S C.J. Chebet & Co. Advocates have filed grounds of opposition and a Replying Affidavit in which they attempt to challenge the applicant’s contention, in my view their stand is wholly discredited by the facts on record and both in law and in fact their contention has no merit.
Briefly the facts of the matter are that by a letter dated 16. 2.1998 the applicant instructed the firm M/S Kipkenda Chebet & Co. Advocates to act for it in upstamping a charge in its favour so as to protects its interest adequately. When those instructions were given the firm of M/S Kipkenda Chebet & Co. Company Advocate consisted of two principal partners namely, Mr. Stephen Kipkenda Kiplagat and Mr. Chebet James Chepkoiywa. However, subsequent to the receipt of the instructions, the said firm split into two, upon which one the two partners Mr. Chebet James Chepkoiywa formed a new firm under the name C.J. Chebet & Co. Advocates. It is this firm which has attempted to recover professional fees from the applicant through the Bill of Costs, which the taxing officer, taxed as aforesaid.
It is in my view clear from the foregoing facts that the firm of C.J. Chebet & Co. Advocates was not a party to the contract between the applicant and the firm of Kipkenda Chebet & Co. Advocates and consequently its purported Bill of Costs was null and void and could not form the basis of a valid taxation. Accordingly, the taxation done on 12. 2.02 was a nullity.
For the above reasons the application is allowed as prayed with costs to the applicant.
Dated at Nairobi this 10th day of May, 2002.
T. MBALUTO
JUDGE