[2018] KEHC 5200 (KLR)
The court found that the retainer was not denied and that the applicant was entitled to proceed by application for judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, rather than being compelled to file a separate enforcement suit. The court further held that even if the certificate of taxation had not previously...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 5200 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mereka & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 115 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Enforcement of Certificates, 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
Mereka & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment in terms of the certificate of taxation.
- 2 Whether the applicant was required to file a separate enforcement suit or could proceed by application under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
- 3 Whether service of the certificate of taxation on the respondent was necessary before seeking judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the retainer was not denied and that the applicant was entitled to proceed by application for judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, rather than being compelled to file a separate enforcement suit. The court further held that even if the certificate of taxation had not previously been served, it formed part of the annextures to the application and no prejudice was occasioned to the respondent. Accordingly, the application was allowed as prayed, and judgment was entered for the applicant in the sum certified, together with interest and enforcement orders.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Judgment entered for the applicant for Ksh. 25,510 in terms of the certificate of taxation dated 12th February, 2018 together with interest at 14% from the said date.
- A decree to be issued for enforcement/execution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
HIGH COURT CIVIL MISC. APPL. NO. 115 OF 2016
MEREKA & CO. ADVOCATES............................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
INVESCO ASSURANCE CO. LTD.....................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application dated 17th April, 2018 seeks the following orders:
(1) That the Honourable court be pleased to enter judgment for the amount of Ksh.25,510/= in terms of the Certificate of taxation dated 12th February, 2018 together with interests at 14% from the said date.
(2) That pursuant to the judgment, a decree be issued for enforcement/execution.
(3) That costs of this application be in the cause.
2. It is stated in the grounds and the affidavit in support of the application that the Applicant’s Bill of costs dated 3rd December, 2015 was taxed on 16th January, 2018 at an all inclusive a sum of Ksh. 25,510/= in favour of the Applicant. That the issue of retainer is not contested and the application herein should be allowed.
3. The application is opposed. It is stated in the replying affidavit that the certificate of taxation was not served on the Respondent. It is further stated that the application is bad in law as the Applicant ought to have filed an enforcement suit.
4. I have considered the application, the reply to the same and the submissions made by the counsels for the respective parties.
5. The retainer is not denied. If the certificate of taxation had not previously been served, the same forms part of the annextures herein and no step has yet been taken in respect of the same.
6. Under Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act, the Applicant had the liberty to file the application at hand as opposed to filing suit.
7. The application is allowed as prayed.
Date, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 5th day of July, 2018
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE