[2006] KEHC 1261 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established its entitlement to judgment on the certified taxed costs, as the respondent had not opposed the application or disputed the retainer or the amount. The requirements of Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act were satisfied, and there was no reason to withhold judgment....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1261 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Muriu, Mungai & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Kodak (K) Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 823 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Unopposed Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- Judgment entered for the applicant for the taxed sum with interest and costs; liberty to execute granted.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Judgment on Certified Sum
- 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
Muriu, Mungai & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Kodak (K) Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Unopposed Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment for the certified taxed costs under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
- 2 Whether the respondent has any valid opposition to the application for judgment on taxed costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established its entitlement to judgment on the certified taxed costs, as the respondent had not opposed the application or disputed the retainer or the amount. The requirements of Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act were satisfied, and there was no reason to withhold judgment. The applicant was therefore entitled to judgment for the taxed sum, interest at court rate from the date of taxation, and costs of the application.
Court Disposition
Judgment entered for the applicant for the taxed sum with interest and costs; liberty to execute granted.
Orders
- Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant for Kshs.14,674 together with interest at court rate from 22nd July, 2005 until payment in full.
- The applicant is granted costs of the Notice of Motion dated 3rd April, 2006.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Misc Appli 823 of 2004
MURIU, MUNGAI & CO. ADVOCATES ………......................................................………APPLICANT
VERSU S
KODAK (K) LIMITED …………………….................................................…………….RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant/Advocate has filed a Notice of Motion dated 3rd April, 2006. that Notice of Motion seeks judgement on certified sum of Kshs.14,674/= together with interest at court rate. This amount is the subject of taxation dated 22nd July, 2006. The affidavit in support states that the Respondent instructed the Applicant to make some recoveries for it. Subsequently on the 14th October, 1998 the Applicant raised a deposit request note for the sum of Kshs.29,835/=. On 17th May, 2001 the applicant sent to the Respondent a final fee note for settlement. The said fee note was annexed to the affidavit. The Respondent, although it received several communications from the Applicant did not pay the final fee. Accordingly the applicant filed a bill of costs which was taxed at aforesaid for amount of
v Page 1
Kshs.14,674/=. The Respondent although served with the application for judgement did not attend the hearing and there was therefore no opposition to the applicant’s application. Court finds that the application satisfies Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and the order sought are therefore merited. The court grants the following orders:-
(1) Judgement is hereby entered in favour of the Applicant for Kshs.14,674/= together with interest at court rate from date of 22nd July, 2005 until payment in full.
(2) The applicant is granted costs of the Notice of Motion dated 3rd April, 2006.
(3) The applicant is granted liberty to execute against the Respondent the judgement of this court.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Dated and delivered this 29th day of September, 2006.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
v Page 2