[2024] KEHC 4039 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 4039 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent, despite being served, had not filed any response, reference, or dispute as to retainer regarding the certificate of costs. In the absence of any challenge, and pursuant to Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the court held that the applicant was entitled to judgment for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 4039 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Otieno, Ragot & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Municipal Council of Kisumu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E191 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Certificate of Costs
Outcome
application allowed; judgment entered for applicant for taxed costs plus interest; decree to issue; no order as to costs of application; file closed.
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Advocate Client Costs, Certificate of Costs, Judgment Entry, Remuneration Order, Interest on Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Advocate Client Costs Certificate of Costs Judgment Entry Remuneration Order Interest on Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Otieno, Ragot & Co. Advocates

Applicant

Municipal Council of Kisumu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Certificate of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the certificate of costs should be adopted as a judgment of the court.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed costs under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
  3. 3 Whether there is any valid challenge or reference to the certificate of costs or retainer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, despite being served, had not filed any response, reference, or dispute as to retainer regarding the certificate of costs. In the absence of any challenge, and pursuant to Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the court held that the applicant was entitled to judgment for the taxed costs as per the certificate, together with interest at 14% per annum from the date specified. The application was therefore allowed, judgment entered for the applicant, and a decree ordered to issue forthwith.

Court Disposition

application allowed; judgment entered for applicant for taxed costs plus interest; decree to issue; no order as to costs of application; file closed.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the applicant/advocate in the sum of Kshs.58,040 plus interest at 14% per annum from 2nd September 2022.
  • Decree to issue forthwith.