[2023] KEELC 767 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, a firm of advocates, had obtained a certificate of costs for Kshs 191,829.78 against the respondent, which remained unpaid and unchallenged. Under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the court is empowered to enter judgment for the sum certified in the certificate of costs if it...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 767 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Olel, Onyango Ingutiah & Co. Advocates; Respondent: John Omware Ronga
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 23 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Adoption of Certificate of Costs as Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed; certificate of costs adopted as judgment; interest and costs awarded to applicant.
- Judges
- E Asati
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Enforcement of Costs Certificates
- 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
Olel, Onyango Ingutiah & Co. Advocates
Applicant
John Omware Ronga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Adoption of Certificate of Costs as Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the certificate of costs issued to the applicant should be adopted as a judgment of the court.
- 2 Whether interest on the taxed costs should be awarded from the date of the certificate of taxation until payment in full.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to the costs of the present application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, a firm of advocates, had obtained a certificate of costs for Kshs 191,829.78 against the respondent, which remained unpaid and unchallenged. Under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the court is empowered to enter judgment for the sum certified in the certificate of costs if it has not been set aside or altered. The court determined that there was no dispute as to the validity or quantum of the certificate, and that requiring the applicant to file a separate suit for recovery would be unnecessary and contrary to the interests of justice. The court therefore allowed the application, adopted the certificate of costs as judgment, awarded interest at court...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; certificate of costs adopted as judgment; interest and costs awarded to applicant.
Orders
- Judgment entered in favour of the applicant for Kshs 191,829.78 as per the certificate of costs dated February 28, 2022.
- Interest on the taxed costs awarded at court rates from the date of the certificate of taxation until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Olel, Onyango Ingutiah & Co. Advocates v Ronga (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 23 of 2021) [2023] KEELC 767 (KLR) (16 February 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 767 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 23 of 2021
E Asati, J
February 16, 2023
Between
Olel, Onyango Ingutiah & Co. Advocates
Applicant
and
John Omware Ronga
Respondent
Ruling
1. The application before court for determination is the Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated July 14, 2022 brought pursuant to the provisions of Section 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 27(2), 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010and Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. It seeks for orders that;a)The court adopts the certificate of costs dated February 28, 2022 in the sum of Kshs 191,829. 78 in relation to the advocate-client Bill of Costs dated December 19, 2017 as the judgement and decision of this court.b)That the interest on taxed costs be awarded at 14% per annum from May 10, 2018 till payment in full.c)That the costs of this application be awarded to the Applicant.
2. The grounds upon which the application is brought as contained in the Notice of Motion and the Supporting Affidavit are that the Applicant’s costs were assessed at Kshs 191,829. 78 and a Certificate of Cost issued on February 28, 2022. That the said costs remain unpaid.That the Applicant who is a firm of Advocates had represented the Respondent in Kisumu ELC Suit No 802 of 2015 (Formerly HCCC No 22 of 2008) and due to the Respondent’s failure to pay legal fees, the Applicant ceased acting and had its fees taxed as per the certificate of costs dated February 28, 2018 annexed to the application and marked FRO1. That the certificate of costs has not been challenged, disputed or set aside or appealed against. That filing a suit for the recovery of the fees/costs would only escalate unnecessary expenses for both parties and result in a multiplicity of actions.
3. The application was unopposed.
4. I have considered the application, Supporting Affidavit and annextures thereto and in light of the law pursuant to which the same is brought and particularly section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act. Section 51(2) of the advocates Act empowers the court to make orders that judgement be entered for the sum certified to be the due costs. I am satisfied that the application has merit. I allow the application and enter judgement in favour of the applicant on the basis of the certificate of costs dated February 28, 2022 for Kshs 191,829. 78 (Kenya Shillings one hundred and ninety-one thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine and seventy-eight cents), cost of the present application and interest at court rates from the date of certificate of taxation till payment in full.Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND SIGNED AT KISUMU, DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS VIDEO CONFERENCING PLATFORM.E. ASATIJUDGE.In the presence of:Maureen: Court Assistant.for the Applicant/Advocatefor the Respondent/Client