[2018] KEHC 4847 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's costs had been duly taxed and certified by the Deputy Registrar, and that the respondent, despite being served, failed to file any opposition or response. There being no denial of retainer or dispute as to the amount, the court had no reason to decline the application. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 4847 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Omaya & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Mumias Sugar Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 477 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Unopposed Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- Application allowed as prayed with costs to the applicant.
- Judges
- CM Njagi
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Judgment Entry, 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
Omaya & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Mumias Sugar Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Unopposed Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered for the applicant for the taxed costs as certified by the Deputy Registrar.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed costs from 21/07/2016 until payment in full.
- 3 Whether the respondent's failure to oppose the application warrants granting the orders sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's costs had been duly taxed and certified by the Deputy Registrar, and that the respondent, despite being served, failed to file any opposition or response. There being no denial of retainer or dispute as to the amount, the court had no reason to decline the application. The applicant was therefore entitled to judgment for the taxed costs, interest as prayed, and costs of the application. The absence of opposition from the respondent further justified granting the orders sought.
Court Disposition
Application allowed as prayed with costs to the applicant.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the applicant against the respondent for the taxed costs of Kshs. 357,952.80.
- Interest to be levied on the judgment sum at the rate of 14% from 21/07/2016 to the date of full payment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 477 OF 2016
OMAYA & CO. ADVCOATES..................................APPLICANTS
VERSUS
MUMIAS SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED.............RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The applicant has filed a notice of motion dated 13th March , 2018 seeking for orders that :-
i. That judgment be entered for the applicant against therespondent for the taxed costs of Kshs. 357,952. 80.
ii. Interest be levied on the judgment sum at the rate of 14% from21/07/2016 to the date of full payment.
iii. That costs of this cause and of the entire miscellaneous application beprovided for.
2. The application is premised on the grounds on the face thereof and supported by the affidavit of one Alex Otieno Omaya where he depones that:
1. The costs payable by the respondent to the applicant havebeen taxed and ascertained by the Deputy Registrar of thisCourt to be Kshs. 357,952. 80 as per the annexed copy ofcertificate of costs.
2. That the applicant had prior to filing its bill of costs given therespondent the opportunity to pay his bill and allowed morethan 30 days to pay but the respondent did not make use of thatwindow of opportunity correspondence to indicate so wereannexed to the application).
3. That since there is no denial of retainer, there is nothing left fordetermination between the parties.
4. That because the sum claimed ought to have been paid earlieron, the applicant prays for interest from 21/07/2016 which issome 30 days from the date the block bill of costs was deliveredto the respondent for payment.
3. The application was served on the advocates for the respondent, S.M. Onyango & Associates Advocates, but the respondent did not file a response. A return of service sworn by the said Alex Otieno Omaya to that effect was annexed to the application.
4. The application dated 13th march, 2018 has in the premises been served on the respondent who did not file any papers to oppose the application. The application thereby stands unopposed. The court has no reason to decline the application. In the circumstances, the application is allowed as prayed with costs to the applicant.
Delivered, Dated and signed in open court at Kakamega this 20th day of June,2018
J. NJAGI
JUDGE
In the presence of
Matete holding brief for Omayo........for Applicant/Objector
N/A...............................................for Petitioner/Respondent
George..............................................................Court Assistant.