[2011] KEHC 2862 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant, having obtained a certificate of taxation for advocate/client costs, is entitled to have judgment entered for the taxed sum against the estate of the deceased client. The respondent, as the confirmed executrix and personal representative, is obliged to pay the costs out of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2862 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Muthoga Gaturu & Co. Advocates; Defendant: Margaret Waitherero
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 164 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Motion for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- Judgment entered for the applicant for the taxed costs against the estate of the deceased; costs to the applicant.
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Execution of Judgment, Personal Representative Liability
- 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
Muthoga Gaturu & Co. Advocates
Plaintiff
Margaret Waitherero
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Motion for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered for the taxed costs in favour of the advocate against the estate of the deceased client.
- 2 Whether the omission to describe the respondent as executrix should prevent the grant of the orders sought.
- 3 Whether the respondent is personally liable or liable only as personal representative of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant, having obtained a certificate of taxation for advocate/client costs, is entitled to have judgment entered for the taxed sum against the estate of the deceased client. The respondent, as the confirmed executrix and personal representative, is obliged to pay the costs out of the estate, not in her personal capacity. The omission to describe her as executrix is a technicality that does not bar the court from granting the orders sought, as the overriding objective is to do justice between the parties. The respondent's participation in the proceedings, including taxation, and the absence of any reference against the taxation, further justified the entry of...
Court Disposition
Judgment entered for the applicant for the taxed costs against the estate of the deceased; costs to the applicant.
Orders
- Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant for KES 78,435 plus interest from 1.7.08 until payment in full against the estate of the deceased Herman Gachuhi.
- The respondent, as personal representative, is obliged to pay the taxed costs out of the estate of the deceased.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 164 OF 2007
MUTHOGA GATURU & CO. ADVOCATES ………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MARGARET WAITHERERO………………………….DEFENDANT
Coram:Mwera J
Bwire for Okeyo for plaintiff
S. Ng’ang’a for defendant
Njoroge court clerk
RULING
The motion about to be determined was dated 17. 12. 10 and brought under Section 5 1 (2) of the Advocates Act, paragraph 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and Order L. rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Therein it was prayed:
i)That judgement be entered for sh. 78, 435/= plus interest from 1. 7.08 until payment in full.
In the grounds it was contended that the sum stated above arose from the taxation of the advocate/client bill of costs on 1. 7.08. The respondent had not paid that sum, and as such the applicant could only execute for its costs if the prayer laid is granted. The respondent had not filed any reference against the taxation.
The supporting affidavit sworn by James Okeyo, Advocate exhibited a certificate of taxation for the sum of sh. 78,435/= and urged the court to adopt it as its judgement to facilitate execution.
The respondent’s grounds of opposition stated that the order sought was directed to her personally yet the taxation was against the estate of one Herman Gachuki Ngatiri. The respondent was only joined in the matter as the executrix of the deceased’s will. There was no replying affidavit in the file and both sides submitted.
The applicant’s position was that the respondent was the executrix and personal representative of the late Herman Gachuhi. He was issued with a confirmed grant. The applicant did represent the deceased Herman in HCCC 1731/85 in which judgement for sh. 550,000/= plus interest and mesne profits was obtained. An advocate/client taxation followed and the claimed sum was awarded. It was not paid and so this application was filed. All the time the respondent participated in the proceedings including taxation. An interest at 14% per annum claimed was equally warranted under the Remuneration Order. Several cases were cited to support the position that a sum borne by a certificate of costs can be made a judgement of the court for execution at the interest rate claimed. This motion was never intended to recover the costs from the respondent personally but from the estate of the deceased, Herman Gachuhi through her. She got a confirmed grant in respect of that estate whereupon the deceased’s property vested in her. She is responsible for paying out of the estate all the deceased’s debts such as this one. The omission to describe the respondent as the executrix of the estate of Herman Gachuhi was an error that need not stand in the way here to do justice to the parties and thereby achieve the intended and overriding object in litigation.
On her part the respondent maintained that she was only an executrix of the estate of the said Herman Gachuhi and not a client of the advocate/applicant.
Having considered all the foregoing judgement is entered in favour of the applicant in the terms set out in the motion. The costs are against the estate of the deceased Herman Gachuhi and the respondent as his personal representative is obliged, now that the costs have been ascertained, to pay the same out of the estate of the deceased. She is not sued here in her personal capacity but in the capacity of the personal representative of the deceased Herman. When she got a confirmed grant in respect of that estate, all the property of the deceased vested in her – hence the orders herein.
Costs to the applicant.
Delivered on 8/3/11.
J. W. MWERA
JUDGE