[2018] KEELC 2187 (KLR)
The court held that since the applicant's bill of costs had been taxed and a certificate of taxation issued, and there was no evidence of a stay of execution or any legal prohibition, the applicant was entitled to judgment for the taxed sum. The respondent's intention to file a reference did not amount to a stay,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2187 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Makhamu, Odhiambo & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Anne Karegi Bett
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 188 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Entry of Judgment After Taxation of Advocate Client Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Entry of Judgment
- 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
Makhamu, Odhiambo & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Anne Karegi Bett
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Entry of Judgment After Taxation of Advocate Client Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered for the applicant for the taxed sum despite the respondent's intention to file a reference against the taxing officer's decision.
- 2 Whether the absence of a stay of execution affects the applicant's right to judgment on the taxed costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the applicant's bill of costs had been taxed and a certificate of taxation issued, and there was no evidence of a stay of execution or any legal prohibition, the applicant was entitled to judgment for the taxed sum. The respondent's intention to file a reference did not amount to a stay, and the delay in obtaining reasons for the ruling did not justify withholding judgment. The court found no legal basis to deny the application for entry of judgment in the absence of a stay or other bar, and accordingly allowed the application as prayed.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant against the respondent for Kshs. 783,675 as taxed in the Certificate of Taxation dated 17th January, 2018.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. MISC. APPLN. NO. 188 OF 2016
MAKHANU, ODHIAMBO & CO. ADVOCATES....APPLICANT
VERSUS
ANNE KAREGI BETT............................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. In the Application dated 13th February, 2018, the Applicant is seeking for the following orders:
a. That Judgment be entered in favour of the Applicant as against the Respondent for the sum of Kenya shillings seven hundred and eighty three thousand, six hundred and seventy five (Kshs. 783,675) as taxed in the Certificate of Taxation dated 17th January, 2018.
b. That the costs of this Application together with interest on the taxed sum be borne by the respondent.
2. The Application is based on the grounds that the Applicant filed the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 10th August, 2015; that the said Bill was taxed at the sum of Kshs. 783,675 and that Judgment should be entered for the taxed amount.
3. The Respondent filed Grounds of Opposition in which she averred that the Notice of Motion is premature, ill timed and rushed; that the Respondent has applied for certified copies of the Ruling delivered on 17th January, 2018 for the purpose of filing a Reference; that the Respondent has filed a Notice of Objection to the taxing master’s decision and that the Application will render the intended Reference nugatory.
4. In her Replying Affidavit, the Respondent admitted that indeed the Applicant’s Bill of Costs was taxed at Kshs. 783,675 and that she was dissatisfied with the decision of the taxing officer; that her advocate has not received the certified copy of the Ruling from the taxing officer and that the current Application was prematurely filed by the Applicant.
5. In the Supplementary Affidavit, the Applicant deponed that the delay by the Respondent in obtaining a copy of the Ruling from the court file should not be a reason for the denial of the orders sought; that the intended reference does not stop the court from granting the Application and that there is no reason as to why the Application should be dismissed.
6. It is not in dispute that the Applicant’s Bill of Costs dated 10th August, 2015 was taxed on 7th January, 2018 at Kshs. 783,675. The Certificate of Taxation was then issued in respect to the said amount on 19th January, 2018. The Respondent has deponed that she intends to file a Reference in this court to challenge the decision of the Taxing officer.
7. It is the Respondent’s assertion that she has not filed a Reference because the Taxing officer has not delivered to her advocate the reasons for the Ruling on taxation despite having requested for the said reasons. That may be so. However, there is no evidence before me to show that after the decision of 17th January, 2018, the Respondent sought for an order of stay of execution of the decision of the learned Taxing officer. Considering that the decision of the Taxing officer has never been stayed, I do not see why I should not grant the Application dated 13th February, 2018 for entry of Judgment.
8. Indeed, having extracted the Certificate of Costs, this court cannot decline to allow the Application for entry of Judgment on the basis that the Respondent intends to prefer a Reference against the decision of the Taxing officer. I have not been shown any law which prohibits the court to enter Judgment after taxation on the basis of an intended Reference. For those reasons, I allow the Application dated 13th February, 2018 in terms of prayer number 1.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2018.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE