[2018] KEHC 6231 (KLR)
The court found that there was no clear evidence as to when the work assigned to the advocate was completed or when the retainer was terminated. The respondent, having alleged that the bill of costs was time barred, bore the burden of proving the date of termination or completion, but failed to do so. Consequently,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 6231 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mbugua & Mbugua Advocates; Respondent: Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 667 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Reference From Taxing Master
- Outcome
- Bill of costs not time barred; matter remitted for taxation.
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Limitation Periods, Taxation of 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
Mbugua & Mbugua Advocates
Applicant
Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Reference From Taxing Master
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bill of costs filed by the applicant is time barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 2 Whether the taxing master had jurisdiction to determine the issue of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no clear evidence as to when the work assigned to the advocate was completed or when the retainer was terminated. The respondent, having alleged that the bill of costs was time barred, bore the burden of proving the date of termination or completion, but failed to do so. Consequently, the bill of costs was not time barred. The taxing master had no jurisdiction to determine the issue of limitation, and the bill of costs should be remitted to a competent taxing master for taxation.
Court Disposition
Bill of costs not time barred; matter remitted for taxation.
Orders
- The bill of costs filed by the applicant is not time barred.
- The bill of costs shall be remitted to a different taxing master with competent jurisdiction to tax the same.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MISC APPLICATION 667 OF 2013
MBUGUA & MBUGUA ADVOCATES.............................APPLICANTS
VERSUS
KENINDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicants herein were the advocates for the respondent. They filed a bill of costs based on work done in favour of the respondent. The taxing master disallowed the bill of costs because it was statute barred. The applicants were aggrieved by that order and moved the court to set aside the said order. Sergon J found that the taxing master should not have addressed the issue of whether or not the bill of costs was time barred because that was beyond her jurisdiction. That is the matter that is now before this court. Both parties have filed submissions and cited some authorities which I have considered.
I am only required to decide whether or not the bill of costs is time barred. The relation between the advocate and his client is contractual. It is provided under Section 4 (1) A of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 Laws of Kenya that time begins to run against an advocate from the completion of the work he is detailed to perform on behalf of his client or when the retainer is terminated.
In the instant case, there is no doubt that there was some relationship between the advocate and client. It is not clear however when the work assigned to the advocate by the client was determined or came to an end. It is also not clear when the retainer was equally terminated or withdrawn. If it is the respondent’s case that work was terminated or retainer withdrawn, the law demands that he who alleges has the duty to prove the allegation. See Section 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80 Laws of Kenya.
The advocates/ applicant have submitted that if the respondent alleges termination of their assignment, then it has the duty prove. In the absence of any such proof then the applicants are within time to file and have the bill of costs taxed. The balance of probability in this case is in favour of the advocates/ applicant and my assessment of the averment is that the respondent is bent on postponing an obvious eventuality.
I have no hesitation in concluding that the bill of costs filed by the applicant is not time barred in the absence of any proof by the respondent who is alleging so. The High Court does not tax bills of costs and therefore the said bill of costs shall be remitted to a different taxing master with competent jurisdiction to tax the same. The costs shall be in the cause.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 23rd day of May, 2018.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE