[2004] KEHC 1225 (KLR)
The court found that since the main suit had not been finalised and only a change of advocates had occurred, it was not proper for the applicant to have filed a bill of costs at this stage. Rule 62A(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order clearly stipulates that only the advocate finally on record should draw a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1225 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Karuru Mwaura & Co. Advocates; Respondent: George Kagima Kariuki; Respondent: Daniel Baragu; Respondent: Susan Wairimu Ndiangui
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 101 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxing Officer's Decision
- Outcome
- Mention for directions; no final orders made.
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Remuneration, Taxation of Costs, Change of Advocates
- 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
Karuru Mwaura & Co. Advocates
Applicant
George Kagima Kariuki
Respondent
Daniel Baragu
Respondent
Susan Wairimu Ndiangui
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxing Officer's Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bill of costs was properly filed given that the main suit had not been finalised and only a change of advocates had occurred.
- 2 Whether the taxing officer erred in assessing the value of the subject matter and the amount allowed under item 2 of the bill of costs.
- 3 Whether Rule 62A(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order applies to the circumstances of this case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since the main suit had not been finalised and only a change of advocates had occurred, it was not proper for the applicant to have filed a bill of costs at this stage. Rule 62A(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order clearly stipulates that only the advocate finally on record should draw a single bill for the whole matter. The absence of the main file and the lack of finality in the suit meant that the application to set aside the taxing officer's decision could not be determined conclusively at this time. The court therefore directed that the matter be mentioned on a future date to confirm the status of the main suit before making final orders.
Court Disposition
Mention for directions; no final orders made.
Orders
- The matter to be mentioned on 22/10/2004 for parties to confirm the actual position of the main suit before final orders are made.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 101 OF 2000
KARURU MWAURA & CO. ADVOCATES..…..…APPLICANT
VERSUS
GEORGE KAGIMA KARIUKI………..…….1ST RESPONDENT
DANIEL BARAGU………………..….………2ND RESPONDENT
SUSAN WAIRIMU NDIANGUI..……………3RD RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The applicant filed an application dated 28th June, 2002 by way of a Chamber Summons under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order Rule 11(2) seeking to set aside the decision of the taxing officer in respect of various items in his bill of costs.
On item No.2, it was stated that the value of the subject matter was Kshs.72 million which could be determined from the plaint. The applicant had asked for Kshs.1,700,000/- under item 2 and only Kshs.120,000/- was allowed.
The suit was initially filed in Nairobi and there were travelling expenses from Nairobi to Nakuru, it was alleged. As the file which gave rise to the bill of costs was not availed to me so that I could look at the plaint to determine what the subject matter was, at the invitation of the applicant’s advocates I called for the file from the civil registry, HCCC No. 533 of 1999, formerly HCCC No. 2414 of 1999 at Nairobi. I then realised that the matter had not been finalised but there had been a change of advocates for the Plaintiff and Juma Kiplenge came on record in place of Karuru Mwaura & Co. Advocates.
The suit itself is coming up for mention on 21st October, 2004. If the matter had not been finalised and only a change of advocates took place, then it was not in order for a bill of costs to have been filed. Rule 62A(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order provides as follows:-
“Where there has been a change of advocates or more than one change of advocates, the advocate finally on the record shall draw a single bill for the whole of the matter in respect of which costs have been awarded.”
Before I make final orders regarding this issue, I direct that the matter be mentioned on 22/10/2004 so that the parties can confirm the actual position of the main suit.
DATED at Nakuru this 19th day of October, 2004.
DANIEL MUSINGA
AG. JUDGE
19/10/2004