[2017] KEHC 1294 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was instructed by the respondent and rendered legal services, after which the applicant's Bill of Costs was taxed in his favour. The respondent did not file any reference or challenge to the taxation, nor was the certificate of taxation set aside or altered. Under Section 51 of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1294 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Munene & Company Advocates; Respondent: Mega Housing Co-operative Society Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 569B of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Enforcement of Certificates, Execution of Judgment
- 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
Munene & Company Advocates
Applicant
Mega Housing Co-operative Society Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment on the taxed costs as per the certificate of taxation.
- 2 Whether the respondent has challenged or set aside the certificate of taxation.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to execute against the respondent for the taxed sum.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was instructed by the respondent and rendered legal services, after which the applicant's Bill of Costs was taxed in his favour. The respondent did not file any reference or challenge to the taxation, nor was the certificate of taxation set aside or altered. Under Section 51 of the Advocates Act, the court is empowered to enter judgment on such a certificate. The respondent's claim of lack of service was not substantiated with any evidence of a pending challenge or application to set aside the certificate. Therefore, the applicant was entitled to judgment for the taxed sum, interest, and costs as prayed in the motion.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Judgment is entered for the applicant against the respondent for KES 271,717.32 together with interest at 14% per annum from 23rd December, 2015 until payment in full.
- The applicant is at liberty to execute against the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL MISC APPL. NO. 569B OF 2016
MUNENE & COMPANY ADVOCATES........................ADVOCATES/APPLICANT
-V E R S U S –
MEGA HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETYLTD...........CLIENT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1) Ng’ang’a Munene practising as Munene & Co. Advocates, the applicant herein took out the motion dated 27. 10. 2016 in which he sought for inter alia:
1. THAT judgement be entered for the applicant against the respondent for the sum of kshs.271,717/32 together with interest thereon at 14% per annum from 23rd December, 2015 until payment in full.
2. THAT the applicant be at liberty to execute against the respondent.
3. THAT costs of this application be borne by the respondent.
2) The motion is supported by the affidavit of Ng’ang’a Munene sworn on 27th day of October 2016. When served with the aforesaid motion, Mega Housing Cooperative Society Ltd, the respondent herein, filed the replying affidavit of Charley Ikenye Muiruri to oppose the motion. When the motion came up for interpartes hearing, learned counsels recorded a consent order to have the motion disposed of by written submissions.
3) I have considered the grounds stated on the face of the motion plus the facts deponed in the affidavits filed in support and against the application. I have also considered the rival written submissions. Before considering the substance of the motion let me set out the brief background of this dispute. The affidavit evidence presented to this court indicate that Ng’ang’a Munene had instructions from the respondent to act for it in the enforcement of an arbitration award which award had arisen from a dispute in a matter where the applicant had acted for the respondent in the purchase of a property. At the end of the aforesaid transaction the applicant filed an advocate/client Bill of Costs against the respondent which Bill was taxed on 23rd December, 2015 at ksh.271,717/32 vide Nairobi H. C. Misc. Application No. 237 of 2015 Munene & Co. Advocates =vs= Mega Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. The applicant has now taken out the motion dated 27. 10. 2017 seeking for entry of judgement and for issuance of execution orders.
4) Having set out in brief the dispute at hand let me now consider the merits or otherwise of the aforesaid motion. It is the submission of the advocate/applicant that the client/advocate Bill of Costs was taxed and a certificate of taxation was issued for the bill. The applicant pointed out that the certificate of taxation as not been set aside or altered hence the respondent is liable to pay the sum of kshs.271,717/32.
5) The client/respondent opposed the motion arguing that it was not served with the Bill of Costs which gave rise to the taxed costs of ksh.1,909,568/= and only came to know of its existence when served with the current motion.
6) Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed before this court, it is clear in my mind that there is no dispute that the firm of Munene and Co. Advocates was instructed by the respondent to act for it in enforcement proceedings of an arbitration award arising from a dispute in a matter where the applicant acted for the respondent in the purchase and sale of a property. It is also not in dispute that the applicant advocate filed his Bill of Costs vide Nairobi H.C Misc. Application no. 237 of 2015. The aforesaid Bill of Costs was heard and determined in favour of the advocate/applicant. It is further not in dispute that the client respondent has not shown to this court that it has filed a reference to challenge the decision on taxation. Under the provisions of Section 51 of the Advocates Act, the court is given power to enter judgement on a certificate of costs which has not been set aside or altered.
7) In the end, I find the motion dated 27. 10. 2016 to be meritorious.
It is allowed as prayed.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court this 10th day of November, 2017.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
.................................................... for the Plaintiff
................................................ for the Defendant