[2007] KEHC 215 (KLR)
The court found that the Advocate had satisfied all statutory requirements under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act: the bill of costs was taxed and a certificate issued by the Taxing Master, the certificate had not been set aside, varied, or stayed, and there was no dispute as to the retainer. The absence of any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 215 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Owino Okeyo & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Mariam Shariff Sagaaf; Respondent: Khalid Abdalla Mohammed
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 104 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed; judgment entered for the Advocate for taxed costs with interest and costs of the application.
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Certificate of Taxation, Retainer Dispute, Judgment 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
Owino Okeyo & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Mariam Shariff Sagaaf
Respondent
Khalid Abdalla Mohammed
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Advocate is entitled to judgment on taxed costs as per the certificate of taxation.
- 2 Whether there is any dispute as to the retainer between the Advocate and the Client.
- 3 Whether the certificate of taxation has been set aside, varied, or stayed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Advocate had satisfied all statutory requirements under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act: the bill of costs was taxed and a certificate issued by the Taxing Master, the certificate had not been set aside, varied, or stayed, and there was no dispute as to the retainer. The absence of any challenge or opposition from the Client/Respondent, both during the taxation proceedings and in the present application, reinforced the Advocate's entitlement to judgment on the taxed costs. The court held that the certificate of taxation is final as to the costs payable to the Advocate, and therefore, judgment was entered for the Advocate for the taxed sum with interest and...
Court Disposition
application allowed; judgment entered for the Advocate for taxed costs with interest and costs of the application.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the Advocate against the Client for Kshs.103,695 with interest at 9% per annum from 23rd October, 2004 until payment in full.
- The Client to pay costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
Misc Succ Appli 104 of 2004
OWINO OKEYO & CO. ADVOCATES….…..…………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MARIAM SHARIFF SAGAAF…………..……....1ST DEFENDANT
KHALID ABDALLA MOHAMMED…………..….2NDDEFENDANT
RULING
The Notice of Motions dated 16th July, 2007 has been filed by the Applicant/Advocate against the Client under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Order L rule 1 of Civil Procedure Rules. It seeks judgment on taxed costs as found due by the Deputy Registrar on the 27th June 2007 and interest at 9% per annum from 23rd October, 2004 until payment in full with costs. Four reasons are given as grounds for the application. One that the costs have already been taxed in favour of the Advcoate, two the certificate of taxation has been issued in the sum of Kshs.103,695/=, three that the taxation has not been altered, varied or set aside and four that this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to make the orders sought.
There is an affidavit sworn in support of the application, sworn by STEPHEN OMONDI OWINO, on behalf of the Advocate. The Advocate annexes the Certificate of Taxation marked “SO1” and depones that to his knowledge, the certificate has neither been challenged nor altered. He also depones that there is no dispute as to the retainer. The Advocate depones further that the sum has not been paid despite demand by the Advocate vide letter dated 4th July, 2007 and annexed as “SO2”.
I have considered this application. I note from the file that an application was heard ex-parte before the Deputy Registrar. The Client/Respondent according to the record sent a representative who did not participate in the proceedings as the Bill of Costs was unopposed.
The Taxing Master taxed the Bill at Kshs.103,695/= and thereafter issued a certificate to that effect.
There was no challenge concerning the retainer in the application before the Deputy Registrar. I find there is therefore no dispute as to the retainer.
The Advocate has, under Section 51(2) of the Advocate Act, to show
a) that a bill of costs has been taxed and a certificate issued by the Taxing Master
b) that the certificate has not been set aside, varied or stayed by a court and;
c) that there is no dispute as to the retainer.
I do find that the Advocate/Applicant has satisfied all three requirements under the quoted section. A Certificate of Taxation is final as to the costs payable to the Advocate.
The Applicant deserved to be paid his costs. This application is merited. I do hereby allow it and enter judgment for the Advocate against the Client on the sum of Kshs.103,695/= with interest at 9% per annum from 23rd October, 2004 until payment in full and costs of the application.
Dated at Nairobi this 30th day of November, 2007.
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE
Read, signed and delivered in the presence of:
Non attendance
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE