[2018] KEHC 6163 (KLR)
The court held that the client/respondent, by making repeated promises to settle the advocate's fees and acknowledging the debt, induced the advocate to delay filing the Bill of Costs. As a result, the client could not be allowed to take advantage of the limitation period to defeat the advocate's claim. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 6163 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mereka & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 317 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Reference Against Taxing Officer's Decision
- Outcome
- reference allowed; decision of Taxing Officer set aside; Bill of Costs reinstated for re-taxation
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- 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
Mereka & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Reference Against Taxing Officer's Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the advocate-client Bill of Costs was time-barred under the applicable limitation period.
- 2 Whether the client/respondent's conduct in making promises to settle fees estopped it from relying on limitation of time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the client/respondent, by making repeated promises to settle the advocate's fees and acknowledging the debt, induced the advocate to delay filing the Bill of Costs. As a result, the client could not be allowed to take advantage of the limitation period to defeat the advocate's claim. The limitation period was deemed to have started running from the date of the last acknowledgment of indebtedness by the client. The Taxing Officer erred by not considering the effect of the correspondences and the principle of estoppel. Consequently, the decision dismissing the Bill of Costs as time-barred was set aside, and the Bill was reinstated for re-taxation before a different...
Court Disposition
reference allowed; decision of Taxing Officer set aside; Bill of Costs reinstated for re-taxation
Orders
- The Taxing Officer’s decision to dismiss the Bill of Costs delivered on 2/11/2017 is set aside.
- The Bill of Costs is reinstated and should be retaxed afresh by another Taxing Officer other than Hon. F. Rashid.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL MISC. APPL. NO. 317 OF 2015
MEREKA & CO. ADVOCATES...............APPLICANT/ADVOCATE
-V E R S U S –
INVESCO ASSURANCE CO. LTD.............CLIENT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1) Mereka & Co. Advocates, the applicant/advocate herein, filed theadvocate-client Bill of costs dated 15. 7.2015 against Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd, the client respondent herein. The Bill of costs was heard and dismissed by Hon. F. Rashid, learned Taxing Officer, on the basis that the same was time-barred. The learned Taxing Officer stated that the Bill of Costs was filed 8 years after the cause of action arose.
2) Being aggrieved by the dismissal order, the advocate/applicantpreferred this reference. The reference was served but the same elicited no response. When the reference came up for hearing, the client/respondent failed to turn up therefore the same proceeded for hearing exparte. Mr. Mathenge, learned advocate for the advocate/ applicant argued that the Taxing Officer erred when she held that the Bill of Costs was time barred yet there were evidence to show that the application was not time-barred.
3) I have on my part considered the material placed before thiscourt. The correspondences annexed to the Bill of Costs indicate that the client/respondent has been in constant communication with the advocate from the date the advocate ceased acting for the client/respondent. It would appear from the correspondences that the client kept on making promises to the advocate to settle his fees but failed to fulfil those promises. The promises induced the advocate/applicant, to delay from taking action to recover his fees until the time to file the bill lapsed. I agree with the advocate/applicant’s submissions that the client respondent should not be allowed to take advantage of limitation of time because the client kept on making false promises until time lapsed to file a Bill of Costs. This court holds the view that time begins to run from the date the client/respondent acknowledged being indebted to the advocate and agreeing not to contest the claim on the basis of limitation of time. Had the learned Taxing Officer taken time to go through the correspondences exchanged between the advocate and the client, she would have proceeded to reject the argument that the Bill of costs was time barred.
4) In the end, I find the chamber summons dated 14. 12. 2017 to bemeritorious. It is allowed as follows:
a) The Taxing Officer’s decision to dismiss the Bill of Costs delivered on 2/11/2017 is set aside.
b) The aforesaid Bill of costs is reinstated and should be retaxed afresh by another Taxing Officer other than Hon. F. Rashid.
c) Costs of the reference to await the outcome of the re-taxation.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court this 25th day of May, 2018.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
..................................for the Applicant
..................................for the Respondent