[2025] KEHC 667 (KLR)
The court held that since the applicant's bill of costs was taxed and a certificate of costs was issued by the taxing master, and the respondent neither appealed nor sought to set aside the certificate or the ruling, the certificate of costs is final and binding. The respondent had the opportunity to challenge the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 667 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Owino Kojo and Co Advocates; Respondent: Bell Estate Agency Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E376 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed; judgment entered for applicant
- Judges
- AM Muteti
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Certificate of Costs, Entry of Judgment, Advocate Client Fees
- 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
Owino Kojo and Co Advocates
Applicant
Bell Estate Agency Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment for the sum certified in the certificate of costs issued by the taxing master.
- 2 Whether the respondent has challenged or set aside the certificate of costs or the taxing master's ruling.
- 3 Whether interest at 14% per annum is payable from the date of the certificate of costs until payment in full.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the applicant's bill of costs was taxed and a certificate of costs was issued by the taxing master, and the respondent neither appealed nor sought to set aside the certificate or the ruling, the certificate of costs is final and binding. The respondent had the opportunity to challenge the taxation through a reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order but failed to do so. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to judgment for the certified sum, interest at 14% per annum from the date of the certificate, and the costs of the application. The court found no irregularity or error in the taxation process and thus granted the orders sought by the...
Court Disposition
application allowed; judgment entered for applicant
Orders
- Judgment is entered for the applicant in the sum of Ksh. 169,580.40 plus interest at 14% per annum from 8th November 2022 until payment in full.
- The applicant shall have the costs of the application and all incidental costs of executing the decree.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
Owino Kojo and Co Advocates v Bell Estate Agency Limited (Miscellaneous Application E376 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 667 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (14 January 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 667 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Commercial and Tax
Miscellaneous Application E376 of 2022
AM Muteti, J
January 14, 2025
Between
Owino Kojo and Co Advocates
Advocate
and
Bell Estate Agency Limited
Client
Ruling
1. The applicant by a Notice of Motion dated the 2nd August 2023 seeks to have judgment entered for the applicant against the respondent in the sum of Kshs. 169,589. 40 being the sum of costs taxed by the Taxing master on 31/10/2022 certified through certificate of costs dated 08/11/2022.
2. The applicant further seeks to be awarded interest at the rate of 14% per annum on the stated sum of Kshs. 169,580. 40 computed from 4/5/2022 till payment in full.
3. The applicant further seeks to have a decree issued upon the entry of judgment in order for them to be able to execute for the recover of the money.
4. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Owino Kojo Advocate on the 2nd day of August 2023.
5. The deponent states that :-I.That I am an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya having the conduct of this matter on behalf of the Applicant and I'm well versed with the proceedings herein hence competent to swear this Affidavit.II.That further to the Affidavit of Service sworn on 6th October 2023, I swear this Affidavit to confirm that on 22-11-2023 I served a copy of the Hearing Notice dated 26. 09. 2023 upon the Respondent vide electronic mail service to its email address sifatowers@yahoo.com. On the same day and through the same email address, I served a copy of the application dated 02. 08. 2023 upon the Respondent. The Respondent has previously used the said email address to instruct the Applicant. (Please refer to the email print outs dated 22nd November 2023 and 4th May 2022. )III.That this second service was informed by the Respondent's Counsel's sentiments in a related matter, Owino Kojo & Co. Advocates vs Bell Estate Agency Limited Nairobi HCCOMMMISC. No. E036 of 2023, that she did not have instructions to proceed with the conduct of the matter on behalf of the Respondent.IV.That what is stated herein is true to the best of my personal knowledge, information and balief
6. I have perused the record and noted that there is no dispute that the applicant file a Bill of costs against the respondent and that the same was taxed by the taxing master of this court and a certificate of costs issued dated the 8th November 2022.
7. The respondent does not appear to have appealed against the ruling of the Taxing master dated the 3rd October 2022.
8. The Ruling therefore still stands and remains binding to the parties.
9. The parties have filed their respective submissions which I have duly considered.
10. It is not disputed that the applicant acted for the respondent and pursuant thereto filed a bill of costs which was taxed amid resistance by the respondent.
11. It follows therefore that there was judicial determination as to the fees payable to the applicant.
12. If the respondent was aggrieved by the said ruling in whole or in part the recourse for the lay in preferring reference against the decision.
13. In the absence of such a reference to a judge the decision of the taxing master stands.
14. The respondent had the choice of the preferring such a reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates (remuneration) Order.
15. The taxing master gave a detailed Ruling which the respondent had the option of challenging before a judge.
16. Similarly, there is no applications by the respondent seeking to set aside the certificate of costs by the taxing master.
17. As it stands the decision of the taxing master stands. There is nothing to show that the same was erroneously and irregularly arrived it. See Petition No. 16 of 2019 Non-Governmental Organizations Coordination Board Vs. ERIC GITARI & 5 Others Supreme Court in rejecting a reference had this to say:-“Rule 6 (2) of the Rules of the Court only permits any party aggrieved by a decision of the registrar to apply for review a Single Judge whose decision is final. Because taxation is not a mathematical exercise but rather a discretionary process, the Single Judge cannot purport to engage in such an exercise , which involves the perusing of the record in order to ascertain all work necessary and properly done in connection with the appeal, including attendances, correspondent perusal and consulting authorities.”
18. The role of the taxing master is thus specific and once performed unless the decision is reviewed by way of a reference this court would have no reason to reject the request for entry for judgment.
19. In the premises I find and hold that the Notice of Motion by the applicant is merited and accordingly judgment is entered for the applicant in the sum of Ksh. 169,580. 40 plus costs interest at 14% from 8th November 2022 as per the certificate of costs until payment in full.
20. The applicant shall also have the costs of the instant application with all the incidental costs of executing the decree.
21. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025. A. M. MUTETIJUDGEIn the presence of:Court Assistant: KiptooKojo for ApplicantNo appearance Respondent