[2017] KEHC 2415 (KLR)
The court held that it is not fatal for a party to seek entry of judgment for taxed and certified costs in the same miscellaneous file where taxation occurred, provided the certificate of costs has not been set aside. The respondent's argument regarding the retainer fee was rejected because such issues should have...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 2415 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lumumba Mumma & Kaluma Advocates; Respondent: Asha Amadahan; Respondent: Halima Nawe
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Children Miscellaneous Application 386 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion for Entry of Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- motion allowed
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Entry of Judgment, Advocate Client 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
Lumumba Mumma & Kaluma Advocates
Applicant
Asha Amadahan
Respondent
Halima Nawe
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion for Entry of Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment can be entered for taxed and certified costs in the same miscellaneous file where taxation occurred.
- 2 Whether the retainer fee allegedly paid by the respondent should be deducted from the taxed bill of costs at this stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it is not fatal for a party to seek entry of judgment for taxed and certified costs in the same miscellaneous file where taxation occurred, provided the certificate of costs has not been set aside. The respondent's argument regarding the retainer fee was rejected because such issues should have been raised before the taxing officer during taxation. Since the respondent did not dispute the taxation or seek to set aside the certificate of costs, and the retainer issue was not canvassed at the appropriate stage, the applicant was entitled to judgment as prayed. The motion was therefore allowed.
Court Disposition
motion allowed
Orders
- Judgment entered for the sum taxed and certified by the taxing officer on 9th July 2013.
- Certified costs to be paid with interest at 9% per annum from 11th July 2012 until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL MISC. APPL. NO. 386 OF 2012
LUMUMBA MUMMA & KALUMA ADVOCATES..............APPLICANT
-V E R S U S –
ASHA AMADAHAN .................................................1ST RESPONDENT
HALIMA NAWE .......................................................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1) The subject matter of this ruling is the motion dated 19. 8.2013 and taken out by the firm of Lumumba Mumma and Kaluma Advocates, the applicant herein, in which they sought for the following orders:
1. Judgement be entered for the sum taxed and certified by the taxing officer on 9th day of July 2013.
2. The certified costs be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 11th July, 2012 being date of filing the bill of costs until payment in full.
3. The costs of this application be awarded to the applicant herein.
2) The motion is supported by the affidavit of Thomas K’Bahati sworn on 19. 8.2013. When served with the motion, Asha Ramadhan, the 1st respondent herein filed the replying affidavit she swore on 17. 3.2017 to oppose the motion. When the motion came up for interpartes hearing learned counsels recorded a consent order to have the motion disposed of by written submissions.
3) I have considered the grounds stated on the face of the motion and the facts deponed in the affidavits filed in support and against the application. It is the submission of the applicant that the advocate/client bill of costs has been taxed and a certificate of costs issued which certificate has not been set aside. The applicant further argued that the retainer has not been disputed. It was also submitted that the client/respondent is yet to settle the bill therefore it is only just and fair to enter judgment as prayed to pave way for execution to recover the same from the client.
4) The 1st respondent is of the opinion that the motion is incompetent, untenable and bad in law since it is filed in a file which was primarily meant for the assessment of the advocates costs and once the same was done, no further proceedings can arise there from. This court was implored upon to find that if an advocate was to recover costs he must file a separate miscellaneous cause to enforce the certificate of costs. It is also pointed out by the respondent/client that the applicant did not take into account the retainer fee that was paid by the respondent. When she gave instructions in H.C.C.C no. 85 of 2008 therefore judgment should not be entered until that issue was sorted out. This court was beseeched to allow the parties time to adjust their claims against each other.
5) Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed before this court, it is apparent that the clients/respondents do not dispute the fact that the advocate/client bill of costs was taxed and a certificate of taxation was issued. It is also not disputed that none of the parties has sought to impugn the decision of the taxing officer. The main issue raised and argued is a preliminary point of law. The question is whether or not a party can go back to the taxation file and file an application for entry of judgment. In my humble understanding, I do not think it is fatal if a party, like in this case, went ahead and applied for entry of judgement in the same file where costs have been taxed. I find the motion dated 19. 8.2013 to be properly before this court.
6) Having determined the preliminary point of law, let me now focus my attention on the merits of the application. It is the respondent’s view that the retainer fee already paid to the applicant has not been factored and deducted from the taxed bill of costs. In my humble consideration, I find the issue relating to retainer fee to be contentious. It is presumed that when parties appear before a taxing officer, they will bring out all their claims and counter-claims to be determined by the taxing officer. In this case, there is an assertion that the retainer fee was never canvassed before the taxing officer. In my view, the respondent lost that right to claim the retainer’s fee at the taxation stage. It cannot be urged at this stage.
7) In the end, I find the motion dated 19. 8.2017 to be well grounded. The same is allowed as prayed.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court this 19th day of October, 2017.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
.......................................... for the Applicant
........................................... for the Respondent