[2019] KEHC 1869 (KLR)
The court held that since the Certificate of Costs had not been set aside or varied, judgment should be entered for the applicant for the certified sum. However, as there was no evidence of the date of service of the Fee Note or Certificate of Costs on the client, interest would not run from an earlier date but only...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1869 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Odhiambo Owiti & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Dominion Farms Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- judgment entered for applicant for taxed costs with interest from date of judgment
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Certificate of 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
Odhiambo Owiti & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Dominion Farms Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered for the applicant based on the Certificate of Costs issued by the Taxing Officer.
- 2 Whether interest on the judgment sum should be awarded from the date of service of the Fee Note or from the date of judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the Certificate of Costs had not been set aside or varied, judgment should be entered for the applicant for the certified sum. However, as there was no evidence of the date of service of the Fee Note or Certificate of Costs on the client, interest would not run from an earlier date but only from the date of judgment. The court reasoned that it would be unfair to impose interest on the client before the quantum of costs was determined by the Taxing Officer, and in the absence of proof of service, the appropriate date for interest to begin accruing is the date of judgment.
Court Disposition
judgment entered for applicant for taxed costs with interest from date of judgment
Orders
- Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant against the respondent for Kshs 1,009,655.
- Interest on the judgment amount shall be at court rates from the date of judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 18 OF 2019
ODHIAMBO OWITI & CO. ADVOCATES........APPLICANT/ADVOCATE
-VERSUS-
DOMINION FARMS LIMITED..............................RESPONDENT/CLIENT
RULING
On 29th May 2019 the learned Taxing Officer taxed the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs, and awarded to the Advocate costs in the sum of Kshs 1,009,655/=.
1. Following the said taxing, the Taxing Officer issued a Certificate of Costs.
2. It is common ground that the Certificate of Costs has not been set aside or varied by the Court.
3. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 51 (2)of the Advocates Act, I find that the sums certified as taxed costs have become due and payable by the Client.
4. Therefore, I now enter judgment in favour of the Applicant, against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs 1,009,655/= together with the costs of the application dated 8th July 2019.
5. Pursuant to Rule 7of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, interest is payable on the Advocate’s fees, from a date which is one month after the time when the Fee Note is served upon the Client.
6. The Advocate has not demonstrated to this Court the date when the Fee Note was served upon the Client.
7. In so finding, I have not overlooked the fact that the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs was served upon the Client on 21st February 2019.
8. The Bill of Costs constitutes an itemized statement of the amount of costs being claimed by the Advocate, against his client.
9. Until such time that the Taxing Officer renders a determination after taxation, neither the Advocate nor the Client knows the quantum of costs that would ultimately be held as payable.
10. Therefore, in my considered opinion, until the Taxing Officer renders a verdict after conducting the taxation of a Bill of Costs, it would be unfair to condemn the Client to pay interest on an amount which had not yet been determined.
11. In this case, the advocate did not provide me with evidence of the date when the Certificate of Costs was served upon the Client.
12. Therefore, I now order that the Interest on the judgment amount shall be at Court Rates, with effect from the date of Judgment.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at KISUMU
This 28th day of November 2019
FRED A. OCHIENG
JUDGE