[2015] KEHC 2284 (KLR)
The court found that the retainer was not disputed and there was no reference challenging the taxing officer's certificate of costs. The grounds of opposition raised by the respondent were deemed hollow and did not constitute a valid defense. Applying section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the court held that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 2284 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Otieno, Ragot & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Kenindia Assurance Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Cause 232 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Advocate Client Bill of Costs and Application for Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment entered for the applicant in terms of the Certificate of Costs with interest and costs; stay of execution granted for 30 days.
- Judges
- EM Muchoki
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Certificate of 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 & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Kenindia Assurance Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Advocate Client Bill of Costs and Application for Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered in terms of the Certificate of Costs issued by the taxing officer.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum from the specified date until payment in full.
- 3 Whether the grounds of opposition raised by the respondent constitute a valid defense to the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the retainer was not disputed and there was no reference challenging the taxing officer's certificate of costs. The grounds of opposition raised by the respondent were deemed hollow and did not constitute a valid defense. Applying section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the court held that the applicant was entitled to judgment in the sum certified by the taxing officer, together with interest at 14% per annum from 29th June 2014 (30 days from the date of the ruling) until payment in full. The costs of the application were also awarded to the applicant.
Court Disposition
Judgment entered for the applicant in terms of the Certificate of Costs with interest and costs; stay of execution granted for 30 days.
Orders
- Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant for Kshs.204,746.10 as per the Certificate of Costs.
- Interest at 14% per annum is awarded from 29th June 2014 until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
MISC. CIVIL CAUSE NO. 232 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF AN ADVOCATE – CLIENT BILL OF COSTS
BETWEEN
OTIENO, RAGOT & CO. ADVOCATES …....................APPLICANT/ADVOCATE
AND
KENINDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED …........... RESPONDENT/CLIENT
Arising from
Nyando SRMCC No. 98A of 2013
THOMAS O. MADANJI ….............................................................. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CHEMELIL SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED ….................................. DEFENDANT
RULING
Before me is the Advocate/Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 14th July 2014 seeking orders that judgment be entered in terms of the Certificate of Costs dated 9th June 2014 together with interest at 14% per annum from 10th November 2013 until payment in full.
The Respondent/Client filed Grounds of Opposition dated 29th October 2014 to the effect that:-
That the application is bad in law, frivolous, vexatious and constitues an abuse of the Court process.
That the application is misplaced, incompetent, and goes against the mandatory provisions of the law.
That the application lacks in merit and ought to be dismissed at the first instance with costs to the respondent having fallen short of the requirements of the Advocates Act.
When parties appeared before Chemitei J. On 4th December 2014 they consented to canvassing this application by way of written submissions (see HCMisc. Application No. 2010 of 2013).However despite reminders those of the Client/Respondent were never received. I have however fully considered those of the Advocate/Applicant as well as the grounds of opposition.
Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act provides as follows:-
''The certificate of the taxing officer by whom any bill has been taxed shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the Court, be final as to the amount of the costs covered thereby and the Court may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including, in a case where the retainer is not disputed, an order that judgment be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.''
In the instant case the retainer is not disputed and there is no reference in regard to the decision of the taxing officer. The grounds of opposition filed are, with due respect hollow and do not afford any opposition to this application.
Accordingly judgment is entered in terms of the Certificate of Costs – a sum of Kshs.204,746/10 with interest at 14% per annum from 29th June 2014 (30 days from the date of the ruling) until payment in full. The costs of this application be borne by the Client/Respondent. It is so ordered.
Signed, dated and pronounced at Kisumu this ..24th... day of …September.... 2015
E. N. MAINA
JUDGE
In presence of:
Mr. Ragot for the Applicant
Miss for the Respondent
CC: Moses Okumu
MISS ARON: I pray for stay of execution for 30 days.
MR. RAGOT: No objection.
COURT: Stay for 30 days granted.
E. N. MAINA
JUDGE
24/9/015