[2015] KEHC 2386 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was duly instructed by the respondent to act as advocate, that the bill of costs was taxed and a certificate of taxation issued, and that there was no evidence of any objection or appeal against the taxed costs. In the absence of any dispute as to retainer or challenge to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 2386 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mwaniki Gitau & Company Advocates; Respondent: Fredrick Mwikya Musyimi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 692 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Judgment entered for the applicant in the sum of KES 653,874.60 against the respondent.
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Entry 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
Mwaniki Gitau & Company Advocates
Applicant
Fredrick Mwikya Musyimi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment in terms of the taxed bill of costs.
- 2 Whether there is any valid objection or appeal against the certificate of taxation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was duly instructed by the respondent to act as advocate, that the bill of costs was taxed and a certificate of taxation issued, and that there was no evidence of any objection or appeal against the taxed costs. In the absence of any dispute as to retainer or challenge to the taxation, the applicant was entitled to judgment in terms of the taxed bill under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. The application was unopposed and the requirements for entry of judgment were satisfied.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Judgment entered for the applicant in the sum of KES 653,874.60 against the respondent.
Orders
- Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant/advocate and against the respondent/client in the sum of KES 653,874.60 in terms of Section 51(1) and (2) of the Advocates Act.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MISC. CIVIL APPL. NO. 692 OF 2014
MWANIKI GITAU & COMPANY ADVOCATES...........APPLICANT
VERSUS
FREDRICK MWIKYA MUSYIMI...........................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The subject matter of this ruling is the motion dated 20th March 2015 in which Joseph Mwaniki Gitau P/A Mwaniki Gitau & Co. Advocates is seeking for an order entering judgement in his favour in terms of the taxed bill. The motion is supported by the affidavit of Joseph Mwaniki Gitau sworn on 20. 03. 2015. The motion was served upon Fredrick Mwikya Musyimi as evidenced in the affidavit of service sworn by Teresiah W. Njoki on 29. 07. 2015.
2. The motion did not attract any response from Fredrick Mwikya Musyimi, thus the same proceeded for hearing exparte.
3. It is the submission of the applicant/advocate that he was instructed by the Respondent/client to institute a compensatory suit to claim damages arising from a road traffic accident. Pursuant to the client’s instructions, the applicant argued that he filed Kithimani RMCC no. 250 of 2006 which he later abandoned in favour of Nairobi H.C.C.C no. 86 of 2008. At the conclusion of the trial, the Respondent/client did not pay the Applicant legal fees prompting the Applicant to have the advocate-client bill of costs to be taxed before the Deputy Registrar. In the end the bill was taxed at kshs.653,874/60 as per the certificate of taxation dated 24. 02. 2015.
4. I have taken into account the material placed before this court plus the oral submissions of the Applicant’s learned counsel. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was given instructions by the Respondent to institute a suit(s). It is also not in dispute that the bill of costs was taxed and I have seen no evidence of any appeal filed against the taxed costs. There is no objection to the motion. I find the same to be well founded.
5. The same is allowed as prayed. Consequently judgement is entered in favour of the Applicant/Advocate and against the Respondent/client in the sum of kshs.653,874/60 in terms of Section 51(1) and (2) of the Advocates Act.
Dated and delivered in open court this 1st day of September 2015
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
………………………………………. for the Plaintiff
……………………………………….for the Defendant