[2010] KEHC 294 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was entitled to judgment for the sum certified in the certificate of taxation, as the respondent had not challenged the taxed costs or the retainer. However, the applicant's claim for interest at 14% per annum from the date of filing the bill of costs was not supported by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 294 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kairu Mbuthia & Partners; Respondent: Naran Arjan t/a Neelcon Construction Services
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Case 358 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed in part
- Judges
- CM Njagi
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bills, Interest 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
Kairu Mbuthia & Partners
Applicant
Naran Arjan t/a Neelcon Construction Services
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 sum certified in the certificate of taxation.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum from the date of filing the bill of costs.
- 3 From what date and at what rate is interest on the taxed costs payable under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was entitled to judgment for the sum certified in the certificate of taxation, as the respondent had not challenged the taxed costs or the retainer. However, the applicant's claim for interest at 14% per annum from the date of filing the bill of costs was not supported by the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, which provides for interest at 9% per annum from one month after delivery of the bill. The court determined that the earliest date for delivery of the bill was the date of the certificate of taxation, and thus interest would accrue from one month after that date at court rates. The respondent's failure to oppose the application or appear in court...
Court Disposition
application allowed in part
Orders
- Judgment entered for the applicant against the respondent for Kshs.668,501.70.
- The sum to bear interest at court rates from 9th December, 2009 until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION – MILIMANI
MISC. CIVIL CASE NO. 358 OF 2008
KAIRU MBUTHIA & PARTNERS....................................................................................PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
NARAN ARJANt/aNEELCON CONSTRUCTION SERVICES...................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This application is brought by a notice of motion dated 25th February, 2010, under Section 51 (2)of theAdvocates Actand Order L Rule 1of theCivil Procedure Rules.The Advocate/Applicant seeks orders –
1. That judgment be entered for the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs.668,501. 70 being the sum certified to be due by the Deputy Registrar of this Court on 9th November, 2009.
2. That the Applicant be awarded interest at 14% p.a. from 7th May, 2008 being the date of filing the bill of costs until payment in full pursuant to the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
3. That the costs of this application be awarded to the Applicant.
The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Kairu Mbuthia, Advocate, and is based on the grounds that the Applicant’s Advocate – Client bill of costs was taxed on 30th June, 2009, at Kshs.668,501. 70 and A certificate of taxation thereon issued by the Deputy Registrar on 9th November, 2009; that the certified costs have not been set aside or altered by this or any other Court; that there is no dispute with regard to the retainer; and that it is just and mete that this application be allowed.
The Court record shows that the Respondents herein were served with this application ten (10) days before the hearing date. That service notwithstanding, they did not file either a replying affidavit or grounds of opposition. Although they had sufficient time to appear in Court on the hearing date, they neither appeared nor were they represented. In the circumstances, the Court decided to proceed ex parte.Mr. Kiingati for the Applicant then submitted that the bill of costs taxed herein had not been set aside or altered and that the application was meritorious. He therefore asked the Court to grant the orders as prayed.
I am satisfied that the Applicant is entitled to judgment for the sum of Kshs.668,501. 70 as stipulated in the certificate of taxation annexed to the application. I note, however, that the Applicant also seeks interest at 14% p.a. from 7th May, 2008 “… being the date of filing the bill of costs until payment in full, pursuant to Advocates (Remuneration) Order.” However, Rule 7of theAdvocates (Remuneration) Order states as follows –
“An Advocate may charge interest at 9 per cent per annum on his disbursements and costs … from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, providing such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full.”
Since the certificate of costs was issued on 9th November, 2009, that was the earliest date on which the Applicant would have delivered his bill to the client and is therefore entitled to interest from 9th December, 2009.
In view of the foregoing, I make the following orders –
(a)Judgment be and is hereby entered for the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs.668,501. 70.
(b)The said sum to bear interest at Court rates from 9th December, 2009 until payment in full.
(c)The Respondents will also bear the costs of this application.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 29th day of July, 2010.
L. NJAGI
JUDGE