[2017] KEHC 5330 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had rendered legal services to the respondent, obtained a Certificate of Taxation for Kshs.262,855.42, and the certificate had not been set aside or altered. The respondent, despite being served, failed to participate or oppose the application. Under Section 51(2) of the Advocates...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 5330 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Muthaura Mugambi Ayugi & Njonjo Advocates; Respondent: Quest Laboratories Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 217 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- GL Nzioka
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Certificate of Taxation, Judgment Entry on Costs, Interest on 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
Muthaura Mugambi Ayugi & Njonjo Advocates
Applicant
Quest Laboratories Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment for the certified amount in the Certificate of Taxation.
- 2 Whether interest at 14% per annum is payable from the date of filing the Bill of Costs until payment in full.
- 3 Whether the respondent has any valid objection to the entry of judgment for the taxed costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had rendered legal services to the respondent, obtained a Certificate of Taxation for Kshs.262,855.42, and the certificate had not been set aside or altered. The respondent, despite being served, failed to participate or oppose the application. Under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the certificate is final as to the amount of costs, and the applicant is entitled to judgment for the certified sum. The court further held that interest at 14% per annum is payable from the date of filing the Bill of Costs as provided under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The application was therefore merited and allowed as prayed, except for the issuance of a decree,...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Judgment entered for the applicant against the respondent for Kshs.262,855.42 as per the Certificate of Taxation dated 12th October 2016.
- The sum of Kshs.262,855.42 to be paid with interest at 14% per annum from 27th April 2016 until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION
MISC. APPLICATION CASE NO. 217 OF 2016
MUTHAURA MUGAMBI AYUGI &
NJONJO ADVOCATES…………………………..…..…..APPLICANT
VERSUS
QUEST LABORATORIES LIMITED……………..........RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This ruling relates to a Notice of Motion dated 15th November 2016 brought under the provisions of Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Order 51(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Section 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, and any other enabling provision of the law. The Application is supported by the grounds on the face of it and the Affidavit sworn by Angela C. Cherono dated 15th November 2016.
2. The Applicant is seeking for orders that:
This Honourable Court be pleased to enter judgement as against the Respondent for the certified amount of Kshs.262,855. 62 in terms of the Certificate of Taxation herein dated 12th October 2016.
That the said sum of Kshs.262,855. 62 be paid with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 27th April 2016, that is the date of filing the Bill of Costs herein, until payment in full.
That pursuant to the entry of judgement, hereinabove, a Decree be issued.
That the costs of this Application be provided for.
3. The brief facts are that the Respondent instructed the Applicant to represent them in Milimani CMCC No. 2177 of 2008 (Yara East Africa Limited Vs Quest Laboratories Limited) and of which the Applicant diligently acted for the Respondent as required. It was agreed between the Applicant and the Respondent that the fees for rendering such representation shall be paid to the Applicant and which fees has never been settled. Subsequently the Applicant filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs herein on 27th April 2016 seeking a sum of Kshs.369,395. 84 as legal fees for above services rendered to the Respondent. On 21st September 2016 the said Bill of Costs was taxed at an all-inclusive sum of Kshs.262,855. 42 in favour of the Applicant. Thereafter, a Certificate of Taxation was issued on 12th October 2016. The said Certificate of Taxation has never been set aside or altered. As Respondent has failed and/or neglected to pay the said costs despite several reminders. In the circumstances, it is only fair that, the Application be allowed.
4. The Application was served on the Respondent herein on 2nd December 2016 along Baricho Road, Plessey House where the Respondent Offices are situated. The same was handed over to one of the company Directors known as Mr. Fredrick Muthuri, who accepted service and returned the stamped copies thereof. The evidence of service is based on the Affidavit of Service dated 7th February 2017, sworn and filed by Moses Wambua, a process server. On the 13th February 2017 when the matter was before Court, Mr. Mungalo holding brief for Mr. Kabue appeared for the Respondent Company. However, when challenged on his representation, the lawyer threw in the towel and told the Court, he had no instructions. The Applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that, they had served the Respondent personally. The Court ordered the Respondent be served again. It is not quite evident whether the 2nd service was effected.
5. Be it as it were, on 24th February 2017 the Applicant filed their written submissions. The Respondents have therefore not participated in the hearing of this Application. I have considered the Applicant’s submissions and I find that, the claim herein arises from professional fees the Applicant is claiming from the Respondents.
6. The Applicant submitted that, they represented the Respondent in a case, Milimani CMCC No. 2177 of 2008, Yara East Africa Limited Vs Quest Laboratories Limited. The fees remain unsettled to date. Following the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs taxation, a sum of Kshs.262,855. 42 was awarded to the Applicant as legal fees. A Certificate of Taxation is evidence thereof. The same has not been set aside and/or altered, as per the provisions of Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Cap 16, Laws of Kenya. As regards, interest claimed on the sum awarded; the Applicant relies on paragraph 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, which allows an Advocate to charge interest rate up to 14% per annum, on his disbursements and costs.
7. I therefore find that, as the Application is unopposed and is fully supported, the same is merited. I allow it in the terms of prayers 1, 2, 4. The issue of decree is an automatic process of law, and does not need a court order.
8. Those then are the orders of the Court.
Dated, delivered and signed in an open Court on this 5th day of June 2017 at Nairobi
GRACE L. NZIOKA
JUDGE
In the presence of
Mr. Mureithi for Ms. Cherono for the Applicant
No appearance for the Respondent
Teresia – Court Assistant.