[2007] KEHC 117 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 117 (KLR)

The court held that although the certificate of taxation had not been set aside or altered and there was no dispute as to retainer, the respondent had raised a serious issue that the applicant's fees had been paid in full. This issue, being a matter of evidence, had not been determined by the taxing officer. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] KEHC 117 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Njogu & Company Advocates; Respondent: Savings and Loan Kenya Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 356 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment for Taxed Costs
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
DW Mbuteti
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Fees, Certificate of Taxation, Retainer Dispute
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Advocate Client Fees Certificate of Taxation Retainer Dispute

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Njogu & Company Advocates

Applicant

Savings and Loan Kenya Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment for Taxed Costs

  1. 1 Whether judgment for taxed costs should be entered where the certificate of taxation has not been set aside or altered and there is no dispute as to retainer.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should be allowed to raise the defence that the applicant's fees have been paid in full before judgment is entered for taxed costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the certificate of taxation had not been set aside or altered and there was no dispute as to retainer, the respondent had raised a serious issue that the applicant's fees had been paid in full. This issue, being a matter of evidence, had not been determined by the taxing officer. The court exercised its discretion under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and found that judgment for taxed costs should not be entered in these circumstances. Instead, the respondent should be afforded the opportunity to raise the defence of payment in a proper suit commenced by plaint. Accordingly, the application for judgment was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for judgment for taxed costs is dismissed with costs.