[2024] KEHC 6004 (KLR)
The High Court lacked jurisdiction to tax the advocate/client bill of costs arising from proceedings before the Environment and Land Court Magistrate. The Deputy Registrar erred in taxing the bill and issuing a certificate of costs, as the proper forum for such taxation is the Environment and Land Court, which has...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 6004 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Onsongo & Co Advocates; Respondent: Alice Wanjiku Kariuki
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application E157 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Entry of Judgment on Certificate of Costs
- Outcome
- Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction; taxation and certificate of costs set aside; bill of costs struck out.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Jurisdiction of Court, Taxation of 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
Onsongo & Co Advocates
Applicant
Alice Wanjiku Kariuki
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Entry of Judgment on Certificate of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to tax the advocate/client bill of costs arising from proceedings before the Environment and Land Court Magistrate.
- 2 Whether the certificate of costs and subsequent orders issued by the Deputy Registrar were valid in the absence of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacked jurisdiction to tax the advocate/client bill of costs arising from proceedings before the Environment and Land Court Magistrate. The Deputy Registrar erred in taxing the bill and issuing a certificate of costs, as the proper forum for such taxation is the Environment and Land Court, which has equal status with the High Court. Jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by acquiescence or lack of objection. Consequently, the court set aside and quashed the taxation and certificate of costs, struck out the bill of costs filed in the High Court, and directed the applicant to file the bill before the Environment and Land Court for fresh consideration.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction; taxation and certificate of costs set aside; bill of costs struck out.
Orders
- Taxation and ruling of 5th February 2024 set aside and quashed.
- Certificate of taxation issued on 19th February 2024 vacated.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
Onsongo & Co Advocates v Kariuki (Miscellaneous Civil Application E157 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 6004 (KLR) (23 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 6004 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Civil Application E157 of 2023
RE Aburili, J
May 23, 2024
Between
Onsongo & Co Advocates
Applicant
and
Alice Wanjiku Kariuki
Respondent
(Arising from the professional services rendered by the Applicant for the Respondent in the original Kisumu MCELC No. 11 of 2020)
Ruling
1. The application dated 20th February 2024 filed by the Advocate/Applicant against the Client/Respondent seeks orders for entry of Judgment in favour of the Advocate against the Client in the sum of Kshs.293,807 as per the Certificate of Costs dated 5th February 2024 and issued on 19th February 2024 by the Deputy Registrar of this court.
2. The Applicant also prays that interest at 14% p.a from 11th January 2012 date of instructions until payment in full be awarded together with costs of the application.
3. The application was served upon the Respondent and an affidavit of service filed into court but the Respondent never filed any response and neither did she appear in court for the hearing.
4. There is also no evidence of any Reference having been filed to challenge the Certificate of Costs dated 5th February 2024. There is neither a challenge to retainer.
5. However, as the legal/professional services for which the advocate sought his costs to be settled were rendered before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kisumu in the Environment and Land Court Case No. E011 of 2020, the proper court with jurisdiction to receive and tax the advocate/client bill of costs was the Environment and Land Court, a Superior court which has equal status with the High Court.
6. Issues of jurisdiction of courts cannot be compromised by the court even if there is no objection to the jurisdiction. It is upon the court seized of the matter to investigate and establish whether it has jurisdiction to entertain a dispute.
7. I say so because the proceedings of a court exercising ELC jurisdiction in the lower court have a chain of command in the hierarchy of courts and they end up before Environment and Land Court.
8. For the Deputy Registrar of this court to tax a bill in a matter involving parties engaged in an ELC related matter, she has to call for the file from ELC Magistrate’s court which is eventually perused and evidence of the items in the bill of costs verified because there are items on instructions fees and court attendances among others.
9. I see no order of the Deputy Registrar calling for the Chief Magistrate’s ELC court file. And even if she was to call for that file which she did not, the danger is that she will be asking this court to assume jurisdiction over an ELC file.
10. In her own Ruling on Taxation dated 5th February 2024, the Deputy Registrar stated as follows:“The Bill was not responded to or opposed. I also note that the file arose from the ELC No. E011 of 2020 and the same should have been filed before the ELC High Court to be determined by the Deputy Registrar ELC High Court. But since the Bill is here, I shall tax the same but in limbo on where the file will be taken to have a reference.”
11. The Deputy Registrar acknowledged that she had difficulties understanding where the Reference if any arose, would be filed. She should have downed her tools. She went beyond her jurisdiction.
12. This court is a court of record. It must correct the errors committed by the Deputy Registrar and set the record straight.
13. In the end, for want of jurisdiction, on my own motion, I set aside and quash the taxation and Ruling of 5th February 2024 and vacate the certificate of taxation issued on 19th February 2024.
14. The Advocate Client Bill of costs as filed in this court dated 7th September 2023 is struck out. The Applicant to file his Bill of costs before the Environment and Land Court for consideration afresh.
15. I make no orders as to costs and this file is closed.
16. I so order.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2024R. E. ABURILIJUDGE