[2017] KEHC 1379 (KLR)
The court found that there was no dispute as to retainer and the certificate of taxation had not been set aside or altered. The applicant was therefore entitled to judgment for the taxed costs. The court further held that, under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the applicant was entitled to interest at...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1379 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates; Respondent: Charles Obange
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 156 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- application allowed in full
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bill, Certificate of Taxation, 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 & Company Advocates
Applicant
Charles Obange
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the certificate of costs dated 4.4.17 should be adopted as a judgment and decree of the court.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum from 16.4.17 until payment in full.
- 3 Whether the costs of the application should be borne by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no dispute as to retainer and the certificate of taxation had not been set aside or altered. The applicant was therefore entitled to judgment for the taxed costs. The court further held that, under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the applicant was entitled to interest at 14% per annum from 30 days after service of the bill, which was established as 16.4.17. The respondent did not oppose the application, and there was evidence of proper service. Accordingly, the court allowed the application in full, granting judgment for the taxed sum, interest as claimed, and costs of the application.
Court Disposition
application allowed in full
Orders
- Judgment entered for the advocate against the respondent for Kshs. 114,378.54.
- Interest to accrue on the taxed costs at 14% per annum from 16.4.17 until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO 156 OF 2016
OTIENO, RAGOT & COMPANY ADVOCATES... APPLICANT/ADVOCATE
VERSUS
CHARLES OBANGE………………….....................RESPONDENT/CLIENT
JUDGMENT
By a notice of motion dated 24. 4.17, brought under Section 51 of the Advocates Act Cap 16 Laws of Kenya; the applicant prays for orders:-
a. THAT the certificate of costs dated 4. 4.17 in respect of a taxation order made on 4. 4.17 for the sum of Kshs. 114,378. 54 be adopted as judgment and decree of this Honourable Court
b. THAT the applicant be awarded interest accrued on the costs at 14% per annum from 17. 4.17 until payment in full
c. THAT the costs of this application be borne by client/respondent
The motion is premised on the grounds on the body of the application and the supporting affidavit of Martin Osodo, Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, filed on 15. 5.17. He avers that the client instructed the advocate to act for him in Kisumu HCCA No. 73 of 2003 Charles. O.Obange v Luke Lawrence Muma& Tom Oyugi t/a Equity (E.A) Investigations.That the bill of costs was taxed on 4. 4.17 for the sum of Kshs. 114,378. 54and a certificate of taxation was issued for the said sum.That the client has not paid the said amount and the applicant requests for judgment for the entire sum.
When the application came for hearing on 5. 12. 17, Mr. Osodo appeared for the applicant.The respondent, though served, did not send a representative. The application is therefore not opposed.
In the case of Musyoka&Wambua Advocates VsRustamHira Advocate (2006) eKLR it was held: -
“Section 51 of the Act makes general provisions as to taxation, as the marginal note indicates. One of those provisions is that the court has discretion to enter judgment on a Certificate of Taxation which has not been set aside or altered, where there is no dispute as to retainer. This in my view is a mode of recovery of taxed costs provided by law, in addition to filing of suit......
In the present case, there is no allegation that the Advocate had no instructions to act for the client in Kisumu HCCA No. 73 of 2003 Charles. O.Obange v Luke Lawrence Muma& Tom Oyugi t/a Equity (E.A) Investigationsfor which costs were taxed and so, there is not a dispute as to retainer. As it stands now the Certificate of Taxation has not been set aside or altered. In the circumstances, I see no reason to deny the Advocate, judgment as sought.
I have considered the provisions of Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order which provides: -
“An advocate may charge interest at 14% per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, providing such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full.”
The rate of interest awardable is 14% per annum applicable from 30 days after the date of service of either the Bill of Costs. There is evidence that the bill of costs was served on the respondent on 16. 3.17 and thirty (30) days from the delivery of the bill to the client expired on 16. 4.17.
The upshot of this is that the notice of motion dated 24. 4.17succeeds and is allowed in the following terms:
a. Judgment is hereby entered for the advocate against the Respondent for Kshs. 114,378. 54
b. Interest shall accrue on the taxed costs at 14% per annum from 16. 4.17 until payment in full
c. The Advocate will also have the costs of this application.
DATED AND DELIVERED ON THIS14thDAY OFDecember2017
T.W. CHERERE
JUDGE
Read in open court in the presence of-
Court Assistant - Felix and Carol
Applicant - Ms Aduor/Yogo
Respondent -N/A