[2016] KEHC 2774 (KLR)
The court held that the relevant date for the accrual of interest on the taxed costs is the date the client was served with a proforma invoice intended for settlement, as this constitutes the 'bill' under paragraph 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The court distinguished between a bill served for settlement...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 2774 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Otieno Ragot and Co. Advocates; Respondent: Kenindia Assurance Co. Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Cause 78 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part.
- Judges
- EM Muchoki
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client 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
Otieno Ragot and Co. Advocates
Applicant
Kenindia Assurance Co. Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether interest on taxed costs should be calculated from the date of filing the bill of costs or from the date of the ruling.
- 2 Whether the proforma invoice served by the advocate constitutes a bill under paragraph 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
- 3 Whether interest claimed in the bill of costs should be excluded from further interest calculations.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the relevant date for the accrual of interest on the taxed costs is the date the client was served with a proforma invoice intended for settlement, as this constitutes the 'bill' under paragraph 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The court distinguished between a bill served for settlement and a bill filed for taxation, finding that only the former triggers the accrual of interest. Since the advocate demonstrated service of such a bill, interest at 14% per annum is payable from that date. However, any interest already claimed and awarded in the taxed bill of costs for the period from 16th October 2014 to June 2015 must be excluded from further interest calculations...
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the applicant for the taxed costs of Kshs.317,256.58 with interest at 14% per annum from 31st July 2015 until payment in full, excluding interest already awarded for the period from 16th October 2014 to June 2015.
- Prayer for additional interest in prayer 2 is declined as it is subsumed under prayer 1.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
MISC. CAUSE NO. 78 OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF TAXATION OF THE ADVOCATE – CLIENT BILL OF COSTS
OTIENO RAGOT AND CO. ADVOCATES …......................... APPLICANT/ADVOCATE
VERSUS
KENINDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED ….............................. RESPONDENT/CLIENT
ARISING FROM
KISUMU HCCA NO. 578 OF 2004
EMILY CHEBWON TOWETT …................................................................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JESSA TRADING CO. LIMITED …................................................... 1ST DEFENDANT
KIRAN KUMAR SHAH ….................................................................. 2ND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
The Advocate/Applicant's prayers in the Notice of Motion dated 7th August 2015 are for judgment for the taxed costs of Kshs.317,256/58 together with interest at 14% per annum from 31st July 2015 until payment in full; Interest accrued on those costs and disbursements from 15th June 2014 and the costs of the application.
The only ground of opposition to the application is that the interest should be calculated from the date of the ruling and not from the date of filing the bill of costs. In so arguing Miss Aron for the Client/Respondent placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Otieno Ragot & Co. Advocates V. Kenindia Assurance Company [2015] eKLRwhere I held that the interest ought to be calculated once the costs were agreed or taxed.
Each case is to be decided on its own and I must reiterate that my interpretation of the ''bill'' referred to in paragraph 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order is one that the Advocate intends that the client should settle but not the bill of costs served on the client for purposes of taxation. In the latter case the Advocate is merely notifying the client that he has filed a bill for taxation which he may defend but not asking him to pay. Both paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order are clear on when interest becomes payable. Here the Advocate has demonstrated that he served the client with a proforma invoice, which it duly received, with the intention that the same be settled. This in my view fits the description of the bill referred to in paragraph 7. The client having not settled the costs the same attracted an interest of 14% per annum as provided in paragraph 7. It is instructive however that part of that interest was claimed at Item 53 of the Bill of costs and as the bill of costs was taxed as drawn the interest from 16th October 2014 to June 2015 should be excluded when calculating the interest now accruing.
The interest sought in prayer 2 shall ofcourse not be payable as the same will have been awarded under payer 1. The costs of the application shall be borne by the client. It is so ordered.
Signed, dated and delivered at Kisumu this 29th day of September 2016
E. N. MAINA
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
N/A for Applicant/Advocate
N/A for Respondent/Client
CC: Moses Okumu