[2024] KEHC 8352 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any proof of imminent risk of execution or other circumstances warranting urgent certification. The absence of such evidence meant the threshold for urgency was not met. Consequently, the application was not certified as urgent, and standard timelines for service...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 8352 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Odongo Okal & Company Advocates; Respondent: Paul Odalo Mak’Ojuando
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Cause E48 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Urgency and Directions
- Outcome
- Application for certification as urgent declined; directions issued for service and response.
- Judges
- MS Shariff
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Urgency Certification, Service of Process
- 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
Odongo Okal & Company Advocates
Applicant
Paul Odalo Mak’Ojuando
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Urgency and Directions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for the application to be certified as urgent.
- 2 Whether there is proof of imminent risk of execution justifying urgency.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any proof of imminent risk of execution or other circumstances warranting urgent certification. The absence of such evidence meant the threshold for urgency was not met. Consequently, the application was not certified as urgent, and standard timelines for service and response were directed.
Court Disposition
Application for certification as urgent declined; directions issued for service and response.
Orders
- Application not certified as urgent.
- Applicant to serve the application within 2 days from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Odongo Okal & Company Advocates v Mak’Ojuando (Miscellaneous Civil Cause E48 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 8352 (KLR) (9 July 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 8352 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Civil Cause E48 of 2023
MS Shariff, J
July 9, 2024
IN THE MATTER OF TAXATION OF ADVOCATES BILL OF COST
Between
Odongo Okal & Company Advocates
Advocate
and
Paul Odalo Mak’Ojuando
Client
Ruling
1. I have perused the Client’s/Applicant’s notice of motion dated 3rd July 2024, the affidavit in support thereof sworn by Plister Omondi advocate on even date and the annexures thereto and I note that the Applicant has not adduced any proof of imminent risk of execution.
2. In light of the above observation I decline to certify this application as urgent.
3. The Applicant is directed to serve the same within 2 days from the date hereof.
4. The Respondent is directed to file a response within 7 days from the date hereof.
5. Mention on 16. 7.2024 to take further directions.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KISUMU THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2024. M. S. SHARIFFJUDGE