[2023] KEELC 16154 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was retained by the respondent and had rendered professional legal services in Kisumu HCCC No. 149 of 2011. The applicant's bill of costs was taxed and a certificate of costs issued, which had not been set aside or altered. The respondent did not dispute the retainer, oppose the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 16154 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates; Respondent: County Government of Kisumu; Plaintiff: Maseno University Retirement Scheme; Defendant: Town Clerk Municipal Council of Kisumu
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 36 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Certificate of Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed; judgment entered for applicant for taxed costs, interest, and costs of application
- Judges
- E Asati
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Remuneration, Certificate of Costs, Taxation 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 & Company Advocates
Applicant
County Government of Kisumu
Respondent
Maseno University Retirement Scheme
Plaintiff
Town Clerk Municipal Council of Kisumu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Certificate of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the certificate of costs issued to the applicant should be adopted as a judgment and decree of the court.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed costs from 13th April 2017.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to the costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was retained by the respondent and had rendered professional legal services in Kisumu HCCC No. 149 of 2011. The applicant's bill of costs was taxed and a certificate of costs issued, which had not been set aside or altered. The respondent did not dispute the retainer, oppose the application, or settle the taxed amount. In accordance with section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the certificate of costs is final as to the amount unless set aside or altered. The court held that the applicant was entitled to judgment for the certified sum, interest at court rates from the date of the certificate of costs, and the costs of the application. The application was...
Court Disposition
application allowed; judgment entered for applicant for taxed costs, interest, and costs of application
Orders
- Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant for Kshs. 229,210.24 as per the certificate of costs dated 21st July 2022.
- Interest on the taxed costs is awarded at court rates from the date of the certificate of costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates v County Government of Kisumu; Maseno University Retirement Scheme (Plaintiff); Town Clerk Municipal Council of Kisumu (Defendant) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 36 of 2023) [2023] KEELC 16154 (KLR) (16 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 16154 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 36 of 2023
E Asati, J
March 16, 2023
Between
Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates
Applicant
and
County Government of Kisumu
Respondent
and
Maseno University Retirement Scheme
Plaintiff
and
The Town Clerk Municipal Council of Kisumu
Defendant
(Arising from the professional legal services rendered by the Applicant/Advocate to the Client in KISUMU HCCA NO. 149 OF 2011)
Ruling
1. This ruling is in respect of the Applicant/Advocate’s Notice of motion Application dated 12th August 2022 brought pursuant to the provisions of section 51 of the Advocates Act Cap 16 Laws of Kenya and rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014. It seeks for orders that; -a.the Certificate of Costs dated 21st July 2021 in respect of the Applicant’s/Advocate’s Bill of costs dated 15th June 2021 in the sum of Kshs. 229,210. 24 (Kenya shillings two hundred and twenty-nine thousand two hundred and ten four cents) to be paid by the Respondent/Client to the Applicant/Advocate be adopted as a judgement and decree of the court.b.the applicant be awarded interest on the taxed costs at 14% per annum from 13th April 2017. c.The costs of the application be granted to the Applicant.
2. The grounds of the application are that the applicant was retained to represent the Respondent in Kisumu HCCC No. 149 of 2011 Maseno University Retirement Benefits Scheme v Municipal CouncilofKisumuand that the Applicant did represent the Respondent in the said suit. That there is no dispute that the applicant was retained by the Respondent. That the applicant’s fees were taxed by the court on 21st July 2021 and that the Certificate of Costs has neither been set aside nor altered by the court. That the Respondent has not settled the taxed amount. That the applicant is entitled to interest on the amount from 13th April 2017 in accordance with Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration)Order.
3. The application is supported by the averments in the Supporting Affidavit sworn on 12/08/2022 by Okoth Odero Advocate an associate in the applicant law firm and the annextures thereto.
4. The application was unopposed. Affidavits of Service on record show that the Respondent was served with the application and hearing notice but neither filed any response to the application nor attended court.
5. Section 51(2) pursuant to which the application was brought provides that“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 judgement be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.”
6. I have read and considered the application. I have also read the court record generally and in particular, the ruling of the taxing Officer herein dated 21st July 2022 and the resultant Certificate of Costs. There being no opposition to the application, the Certificate of Costs having not been reviewed or varied and given that the retainer is not disputed, I find that the application is merited. I allow the application and hereby enter judgement in favour of the applicant on the basis of the certificate of costs dated 21st July 2022 for Kshs.229,210. 24, interest thereon at court rates from the date of Certificate of Costs. Costs of the current application are awarded to the applicant.
7Orders accordingly
RULING, DATED AND SIGNED AT KISUMU, READ VIRTUALLY THIS 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION.E. ASATIJUDGE.In the presence of:Maureen: Court Assistant.No appearance for the Applicant/AdvocateNo appearance for the Respondent/Client