[2018] KEHC 1926 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's costs had been duly taxed and certified, and the respondent had neither paid the sum nor challenged the certificate of costs by way of review or appeal. The respondent also failed to file any response to the application despite being served and given time. In the absence of any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 1926 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Makumi, Mwangi, Wangondu & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Invesco Assurance Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 193 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- BC Koech
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Costs, Certificate of Costs, Unopposed Application
- 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
Makumi, Mwangi, Wangondu & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Invesco Assurance Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered in favour of the applicant for the taxed costs as certified.
- 2 Whether the respondent has any valid objection or response to the application for judgment on taxed costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's costs had been duly taxed and certified, and the respondent had neither paid the sum nor challenged the certificate of costs by way of review or appeal. The respondent also failed to file any response to the application despite being served and given time. In the absence of any opposition or pending challenge to the taxed costs, the court held that the applicant was entitled to judgment for the certified sum as a matter of law and procedure. The application was therefore allowed as prayed.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant for Kshs.243,542.70 against the respondent.
- The respondent shall pay the costs of this application to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
MISC CIVIL APPLICATION 193 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES ACT, CAP 16 LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF TAXATION OF COSTS BETWEEN ADVOCATES & CLIENT
BETWEEN
MAKUMI, MWANGI, WANGONDU & CO. ADVOCATES......................APPLICANT
VERSUS
INVESCO ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED...............................................CLIENT
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CIVIL SUIT NO. 88 OF 2013
NJAWA SAFARIS....................................................................................1ST APPELLANT
RICHARD KIOKO MUTANGILI........................................................2ND APPELLANT
VERSUS
FRIDER NDUKU NYAMAI................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
MULWA MAVUSYU...........................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By a Notice of Motion dated 17/05/2017 the Applicant sought for an order that judgment be entered in favour of the Applicant for the sum of Kshs.243,542. 70 as well as the cost of the said Application.
2. The Application is supported by the grounds listed on the face of the Application together with the affidavit of Beth Mwangi Sworn on even date.
3. The Applicant’s case is that the Applicant had represented the Respondent in Machakos HCCA No. 88 of 2013 and thereafter the Applicant’s costs was duly taxed at Kshs.243,542/70 which sums remain unpaid by the Respondent despite demand notices being made. The Applicant therefore seeks for an order that judgement be entered for the said sums.
4. The Respondent was duly served with the Application but however failed to file a response thereto.
5. The Applicant’s Bill of Costs was duly taxed and a ruling thereon was made by the Deputy Registrar dated 23/08/2016 where the same was taxed at Kshs.243,542/70. A certificate of costs was thereafter issued and it is dated 7/11/2016. The Applicant duly forwarded the certificate of costs to the Respondent vide a letter dated 17/11/2016.
6. It is noted that the Respondent upon being served with the certificate of costs has neither lodged a review nor an appeal against the taxed sum. Further, the Respondent has not filed a response to the Applicant’s Application despite this court granting it time to do so. Hence the Application remains unopposed and ought to be allowed as prayed.
7. In the result the Applicant’s Application dated 17/5/2017 has merit. The same is allowed as prayed.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at MACHAKOS this 6th day of November, 2018.
D. K. KEMEI
JUDGE