[2023] KEHC 2524 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was entitled to judgment for the taxed costs as per the certificate of costs dated July 8, 2022, since the respondent had neither settled the amount nor challenged the certificate by way of setting aside or varying it. There was no dispute on retainer, and the respondent failed to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 2524 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mbugwa, Atudo & Macharia Advocates; Respondent: Kenya Alliance Insurance Co Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Entry of Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Judgment entered for the applicant for the taxed costs with interest and costs of the application.
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Certificate of Costs, Interest on 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
Mbugwa, Atudo & Macharia Advocates
Applicant
Kenya Alliance Insurance Co Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Entry of Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered for the applicant for the taxed advocate/client bill of costs as per the certificate of costs.
- 2 Whether interest at 14% per annum from June 3, 2016 is payable on the certified costs.
- 3 Whether the respondent has any valid objection to the certificate of costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was entitled to judgment for the taxed costs as per the certificate of costs dated July 8, 2022, since the respondent had neither settled the amount nor challenged the certificate by way of setting aside or varying it. There was no dispute on retainer, and the respondent failed to respond to the application despite service. The court further held that interest at 14% per annum from June 3, 2016, was justified in accordance with the Advocates Remuneration Order. The application was therefore allowed with costs to the applicant.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Judgment entered for the applicant for the taxed costs with interest and costs of the application.
Orders
- Judgment is entered for the applicant for KES 186,243 as per the certificate of costs dated July 8, 2022.
- Interest at 14% per annum is awarded from June 3, 2016 until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Mbugwa, Atudo & Macharia Advocates v Kenya Alliance Insurance Co Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 2524 (KLR) (28 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 2524 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Homa Bay
Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2022
KW Kiarie, J
March 28, 2023
Between
Mbugwa, Atudo & Macharia Advocates
Applicant
and
Kenya Alliance Insurance Co Ltd
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant moved the court by way of Notice of Motion dated October 17, 2022 under sections 51 (2) of the Advocates Act & schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order as well as under Order 51 Rule 1 of theCivil Procedure Rules, 2010. The applicant is seeking the following orders:a.That judgment be and is hereby entered or kshs 186,243/- for the taxed advocate/client bill of costs as contained in the Certificate of Costs dated July 8, 2022 with interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum with effect from June 3, 2016 until payment in full.b.That costs of the application be and is herein be awarded to the advocate/applicant.
2. The application is premised on the following grounds:a.That the applicant was issued with a certificate of costs of his costs arising from the applicant’s representation of the respondent in Oyugis Civil Suit No 56 of 2016 in the matter Marvin Odhiambo vs Mary Akinyi.b.That the Certificate of Costs dated July 8, 2022 has neither been settled nor has it been set aside and or varied through an order of this honorable court.c.That there is no dispute on retainer between the parties.d.That despite demand, the advocate/applicant has been denied legal fees, disbursements and other related expenses by the respondent for an extended period of time and the monetary value of the legal fees has been grossly eroded by the incidence of inflation over the years, hence the advocate/applicant’s claim for interest.e.That it is in the interest of justice that the orders sough herein be granted.
3. The respondent was served but did not respond to the application.
4. I have perused the record and the supporting affidavit of Pinto Nelson Atudo. I find the application has merits. The same is allowed with costs.
Delivered and signed at Homa Bay this 28th day of March, 2023KIARIE WAWERU KIARIEJUDGE.