[2009] KEHC 2139 (KLR)
The court held that since the certificate of taxation issued by the Taxing Officer had not been challenged by the respondent under the applicable rules, it was final and conclusive as to the amount of costs due from the respondent to the applicant. The retainer was not disputed, and there was no evidence that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 2139 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kantai & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Thomas Njunge t/a Njunge Industrial Enterprises Company
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Children Miscellaneous Application 854 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment Under Section 51 of the Advocates Act Following Taxation of Costs
- Outcome
- application granted
- Judges
- JM Khamoni
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bills, Certificate of Taxation, Enforcement of 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
Kantai & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Thomas Njunge t/a Njunge Industrial Enterprises Company
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment Under Section 51 of the Advocates Act Following Taxation of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the certificate of taxation is final and conclusive where not challenged under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Rules.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment based on the certificate of taxation where the retainer is not disputed and no payment has been made.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the certificate of taxation issued by the Taxing Officer had not been challenged by the respondent under the applicable rules, it was final and conclusive as to the amount of costs due from the respondent to the applicant. The retainer was not disputed, and there was no evidence that the respondent had paid any part of the taxed costs. The court found no merit in the respondent's opposition to the application and granted the applicant's Notice of Motion for judgment in terms of the certificate of taxation.
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 18th August 2008 is granted as prayed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 854 OF 2005
KANTAI & CO. ADVOCATES............................................................................................................................................... APPLICANT
VERSUS
THOMAS NJUNGE T/A NJUNGE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES COMPANY.............................................................................CLIENT/ RESPONDENT
RULING
The Notice Motion dated 18th August 2008 for judgment under section 51 of the advocate’s Act is opposed by the advocate’s client who participated fully in the taxation of the bill of costs before the Taxing Officer of this court. The said Taxing Officer’s certificate of Taxation dated 1st August 2008 has not to-date been challenged under paragraph 11 of The Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Rules. It is virtually a year gone and this court must therefore take the taxation in that certificate of taxation as final.
The retainer is not disputed and there is no evidence exhibited before me that following taxation of the relevant bill of costs between the parties and the issuance of the relevant certificate of Taxation aforesaid, the Respondent paid any money to the applicant towards payment of this costs.
In the circumstances I do not find any good reason the Respondent is advancing in opposing this Notice of Motion as the Certificate of Taxation is an official document showing the amount of money due from the Respondent to the Applicant following their discourse during the taxation proceedings before the Taxing Officer. I am not here to repeat that process as it was during the taxation proceedings that the Respondent was supposed to show the Taxing Officer the amount of money the Respondent has paid the Applicant as Costs before taxation so that the Applicant does not claim same amount again to include it in the Certificate of Taxation as due to the Applicant from the Respondent.
From what I am saying, I do hereby reject the Respondent’s opposition to this Notice of Motion and do proceed to grant the said Notice of Motion dated 18th August 2008 as prayed.
Dated this 17th day of July 2009.
J.M. KHAMONI
JUDGE