[2011] KEHC 160 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 160 (KLR)

The court found that the 21 pending matters between the same parties involved similar questions of law and fact, specifically whether judgment should be entered for the sums certified in the respective certificates of taxation. Consolidation was warranted to promote expeditious disposal and save costs, with no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] KEHC 160 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Muciimi Mbaka & Co., Advocates; Respondent: City Council of Nairobi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Suit 759 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Consolidation, Judgment, and Interest After Taxation of Costs
Outcome
Application allowed in part; consolidation granted; judgment entered for the Advocate for the consolidated sum; interest awarded at statutory rate; costs to the Advocate.
Judges
DW Mbuteti
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bills, Consolidation of Suits, Interest on Judgment Debt
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Taxation of Costs Advocate Client Bills Consolidation of Suits Interest on Judgment Debt

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muciimi Mbaka & Co., Advocates

Applicant

City Council of Nairobi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Consolidation, Judgment, and Interest After Taxation of Costs

  1. 1 Whether the 21 advocate-client bills of costs should be consolidated for convenience and expedition.
  2. 2 Whether judgment should be entered for the total sum certified in the certificates of taxation under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum or at the statutory rate of 9% per annum on the judgment sum.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 21 pending matters between the same parties involved similar questions of law and fact, specifically whether judgment should be entered for the sums certified in the respective certificates of taxation. Consolidation was warranted to promote expeditious disposal and save costs, with no prejudice to the respondent. The court was satisfied that there was no dispute as to retainer and that the certificates of taxation had not been set aside or varied, thus judgment could be entered for the consolidated sum under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. On the issue of interest, the court held that it was bound by the statutory rate of 9% per annum and lacked jurisdiction...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; consolidation granted; judgment entered for the Advocate for the consolidated sum; interest awarded at statutory rate; costs to the Advocate.

Orders

  • All 21 matters are consolidated to proceed as one in Misc. Application No. 759 of 2009.
  • Judgment entered for the Advocate against the Client for KShs 3,113,886.66.