[2016] KEHC 5704 (KLR)
The court found that the Advocate/Applicant was entitled to judgment for the certified costs as there was a valid certificate of costs that had not been set aside and no dispute as to retainer. However, the court held that interest under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order does not accrue from the date of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5704 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates; Respondent: Kenindia Assurance Co. Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Cause 63 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application for Judgment After Taxation of Costs
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part; judgment entered for the applicant for the certified sum with interest from the date of certification.
- Judges
- EM Muchoki
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client 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
Kenindia Assurance Co. Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application for Judgment After Taxation of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Advocate/Applicant is entitled to judgment for the certified costs.
- 2 Whether interest on the taxed costs should run from the date of filing the bill of costs or from the date of certification of costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Advocate/Applicant was entitled to judgment for the certified costs as there was a valid certificate of costs that had not been set aside and no dispute as to retainer. However, the court held that interest under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order does not accrue from the date of filing the bill of costs, but rather from the date of certification of costs by issuance of the certificate of costs. The rationale is that until taxation and certification, the amount due is not determined, and it would be unfair to charge interest on an undetermined sum. Therefore, interest at 14% per annum is to be calculated from 13th July 2015, the date of certification,...
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part; judgment entered for the applicant for the certified sum with interest from the date of certification.
Orders
- Judgment is entered for the Advocate/Applicant for Kshs.191,482 together with interest at 14% per annum from 13th July 2015 until payment in full.
- Costs of the application to be borne by the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 63 OF 2015
OTIENO, RAGOT & COMPANY ADVOCATES …..........ADVOCATE/APPLICANT
VERSUS
KENINDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED ….....................CLIENT/RESPONDENT
RULING
By the Notice of Motion dated 20th August 2015 the Advocate/Applicant seeks judgment in the sum of Kshs.191,482/= together with interest at 14% per annum from 25th May 2015 until payment in full. It is also sought that the costs of this application be borne by the respondent.
The grounds for the application are that costs as between Advocate and client were taxed at Kshs.191,482/= and a certificate of costs issued; that there is no dispute as to the retainer and the certificate of costs has not been altered or set aside. Further that interest is due from 25th May 2015 being the date when the bill of costs was filed as provided in rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
The Client/Respondent opposes the application on grounds that it is bad in law, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process; that it is prejudicial
to the Respondent, lacks merit and made under the wrong provisions of the law and more importantly that interest should be from the date of ruling and not the date of filing the bill of costs for taxation.
The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. Having considered the application and the rival submissions I must agree that it is neither frivolous nor bad in law. To the contrary I am satisfied that it has merit save on the issue of interest. I say it has merit as there is a certificate of costs that has neither been altered or set aside and going through the submissions there is no dispute on the retainer. The Advocate/Applicant is therefore entitled to have judgment entered in his favour for the costs certified to be due. However interest does not become due on the date of service of the notice for taxation and the bill of costs. Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order states:-
“7. An Advocate may charge interest at 14 per cent 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”
In my view the bill referred to in this rule is the Advocate's final bill setting out his disbursements and costs which he then requires the client to pay but not a bill which he intends to file for taxation. In the latter case the costs and disbursements are yet to be determined and the client cannot therefore fairly be called upon to pay interest on that which is yet to be determined. In my view in the latter case interest would become chargeable only upon the taxation of the bill by the taxing officer and upon certification of the costs by issuance of the certificate of costs in this case 13th July 2015.
In the circumstances judgment is entered for Advocate/Applicant for a sum of Kshs.191,482/= together with interest at 14% per annum from 13th July 2015 until payment in full. It is so ordered.
Signed, dated and delivered in open Court this ..14th.. day of ..April..2016
E. N. MAINA
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mr. Siganga for Advocate/Applicant Holding Brief for Alinaitwe
Miss Aron for Client/Respondent
CC: Felix Magutu