[2018] KEHC 8607 (KLR)
The court found that the Certificate of Costs for KShs.2,265,547/= issued to the applicant had not been set aside or varied and that the respondent had not opposed the motion. Under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, such a certificate is final as to the amount unless set aside or altered. Since the retainer was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 8607 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ken Muriuki & Peter Kirimi Mbogo t/a Muriuki Advocates; Respondent: Isiolo County Assembly Service Board
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 25 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Judgment entered for the applicant for the certified sum with costs.
- Judges
- A Mabeya
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Costs, Certificate of Costs, Judgment Entry
- 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
Ken Muriuki & Peter Kirimi Mbogo t/a Muriuki Advocates
Applicant
Isiolo County Assembly Service Board
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment for the amount certified in the Certificate of Costs.
- 2 Whether the Certificate of Costs is final and conclusive in the absence of being set aside or altered.
- 3 Whether the respondent's failure to oppose the motion affects the outcome.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Certificate of Costs for KShs.2,265,547/= issued to the applicant had not been set aside or varied and that the respondent had not opposed the motion. Under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, such a certificate is final as to the amount unless set aside or altered. Since the retainer was not disputed and the respondent did not contest the application, the court held that the applicant was entitled to judgment for the certified sum. No interest was awarded as it was not prayed for.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Judgment entered for the applicant for the certified sum with costs.
Orders
- Judgment is entered for the applicant for KShs.2,265,547/=.
- The respondent shall pay the applicant the sum of KShs.2,265,547/=.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 25 OF 2016
KEN MURIUKI & PETER KIRIMI MBOGO
T/AMURIUKIADVOCATES....................................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
ISIOLO COUNTY ASSEMBLY SERVICEBOARD............RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The applicant is a firm of Advocates who have taken out a Motion on Notice dated 18th October, 2017. In that Motion which has been taken out under section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act, the applicant seeks judgment for KShs.2,265,547/= against the respondent being the amount certified in the Certificate of Costs dated 9th December, 2016.
2. The grounds upon which the Motion was predicated were that the Advocate/Client costs were taxed and a Certificate of Costs for KShs.2,265,547/= issued on 21st December, 2016. That the said Certificate has not been set aside or altered and that the sum certified has not been paid despite demand. Accordingly, the applicant sought for judgment for the said amount.
3. Mr. Muriuki who appeared for the applicant submitted that the Certificate of Costs had not been set aside and that although the motion was served upon the respondent, there was no opposition thereto.
4. I have considered the Motion and the submission of Learned Counsel. Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act provides:-
“51 (2) The certificate of the taxing officer by whom any bill has been taxed shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the Court, be final as to the amount of the costs covered there by, and the Court may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including, in a case where the retainer is not disputed, an order that judgment be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.”
5. On record is an Advocate/Client bill of costs dated 22nd March, 2016. The same was taxed and a ruling delivered on 7th December, 2016 for KShs.2,265,547/=. Subsequently, the taxing officer of this court issued a Certificate for the same at KShs.2,265,547 on 21st December, 2016. That certificate has not been set aside or varied. All these facts are not controverted as the respondent did not file any response to the motion.
6. Accordingly, I find that the Motion is meritorious and the same is allowed as prayed with costs. Since no interest was prayed for, I will award none.
It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED at Meru this 1st day of February, 2018.
A. MABEYA
JUDGE