[2023] KEHC 18826 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 18826 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's certificate of taxation had not been set aside or altered and that the retainer was not disputed. Therefore, under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the court was empowered to enter judgment for the certified sum. However, the applicant failed to demonstrate that it had raised...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 18826 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kinyanjui Njuguna & Co Advocates; Respondent: Xplico Insurance Company Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kiambu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 407 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Certificate of Taxation
Outcome
partially allowed
Judges
A Mshila
Legal Topics
Advocates Remuneration, Certificate of Taxation, Interest on Costs, Enforcement of Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Advocates Remuneration Certificate of Taxation Interest on Costs Enforcement of Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kinyanjui Njuguna & Co Advocates

Applicant

Xplico Insurance Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Certificate of Taxation

  1. 1 Whether the court should enter judgment in favour of the applicant for the sum certified in the certificate of taxation.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum from 4/7/2018.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's certificate of taxation had not been set aside or altered and that the retainer was not disputed. Therefore, under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the court was empowered to enter judgment for the certified sum. However, the applicant failed to demonstrate that it had raised the claim for interest at 14% per annum with the respondent before payment or tender in full, as required by Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The record showed that the fee note did not mention interest, and there was no evidence of a demand for interest prior to payment. Consequently, the prayer for interest was disallowed. The application was partially allowed:...

Court Disposition

partially allowed

Orders

  • The Certificate of Taxation dated July 30, 2020 in the sum of Kshs 361,004/- is adopted as a judgment of the court.
  • Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant in the sum of Kshs 361,004/=.