[2023] KEHC 94 (KLR)
The court found that the Taxing Master made a mathematical error by adding, rather than subtracting, the deposit paid by the respondent from the total taxed costs. The court had previously corrected this error, establishing that the correct amount due from the respondent to the applicant was Kshs. 85,105/-. No error...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 94 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ng'ang'a Munene t/a Munene & Company Advocates; Respondent: Daniel Githaiga Mwaniki
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 1 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment After Taxation of Advocate Client Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed; judgment entered for applicant for Kshs. 85,105/-; no order as to costs
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bill, Mathematical Error in Taxation
- 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
Ng'ang'a Munene t/a Munene & Company Advocates
Applicant
Daniel Githaiga Mwaniki
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment After Taxation of Advocate Client Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered for the applicant for the sum of Kshs. 85,105/- as taxed costs.
- 2 Whether the Taxing Master made a mathematical error in the taxation of the advocate-client bill of costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Taxing Master made a mathematical error by adding, rather than subtracting, the deposit paid by the respondent from the total taxed costs. The court had previously corrected this error, establishing that the correct amount due from the respondent to the applicant was Kshs. 85,105/-. No error of principle was found in the Taxing Master's approach apart from the mathematical mistake. As the respondent did not oppose the present application and the amount due had already been judicially determined, the court found the application merited and entered judgment for the applicant for the corrected sum.
Court Disposition
application allowed; judgment entered for applicant for Kshs. 85,105/-; no order as to costs
Orders
- Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant against the respondent for Kshs. 85,105/-.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Munene t/a Munene & Company Advocates v Mwaniki (Miscellaneous Civil Application 1 of 2017) [2023] KEHC 94 (KLR) (19 January 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 94 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nyeri
Miscellaneous Civil Application 1 of 2017
FN Muchemi, J
January 19, 2023
Between
Ng'ang'a Munene t/a Munene & Company Advocates
Advocate
and
Daniel Githaiga Mwaniki
Client
Ruling
Brief facts 1. The application for determination dated 8th January 2018 seeks for orders for judgment to be entered for Kshs. 85,105/- with interest at court rates and that a decree do issue accordingly.
The Applicant’s case 2. The applicant states that it is a law firm, which acted for the respondent in this matter HC Misc. App No. 1 of 2017. The bill of costs was taxed but the respondent has not settled the decree on costs. As such, the applicant prays for judgment be entered for the sum of Kshs. 85,105/- with interest and costs.
Analysis and Determination 3. Earlier in this matter, the respondent filed a reference dated 24th June 2019 seeking to set aside and review the Taxing Master’s ruling dated 16th November 2017 on the Advocate/Client Bill of costs dated 13th January 2017. In its ruling delivered on 2nd June 2022, this court allowed the reference on the principle that the Taxing Master made a mathematical error which warranted the court to interfere with the taxing master’s ruling. The bill of costs was taxed at Kshs. 115,312/- but the taxing Master made an error and added the deposit paid by the respondent to the applicant instead of subtracting it from the taxed cost. The court found that the total taxed bill less the deposit of legal fees paid was Kshs. 85,105/- and made the correction to that effect. Save for the mathematical error, the court found that no error of principle was made by the Taxing Master and as such found no need to refer the bill back to the taxing master. The court went ahead and made the correction on the bill thereby reducing the bill with the deposit legal fees paid by the applicant using the receipts in this file.
4. It is important to note that the applicant did not file any replying affidavit in opposition to this application.
5. I find this application merited and allow it accordingly. Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the applicant against the respondent for Kshs. 85,105/- with no orders as to costs.
6. It is hereby so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NYERI THIS 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023. F. MUCHEMIJUDGERULING DELIVERED THROUGH VIDEOLINK THIS 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023.