[2024] KEHC 8076 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant/advocate had obtained a certificate of taxation for Kshs. 883,866.30, which had not been challenged, set aside, or altered by the respondents. In accordance with Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and the cited case law, the court held that it was proper to adopt the certificate of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 8076 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Nicholas Ouma Ounda; Respondent: Matilda Achieng Aiyera; Respondent: Richard Omuma Ouguindi; Respondent: Dennis Okidi; Respondent: Maurice Otieno; Applicant: Brian Njau & Co. Advocates
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Adopt Certificate of Taxation as Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Judgment entered for the applicant/advocate for the taxed sum with interest and costs.
- Judges
- JM Chigiti
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Remuneration, Certificate of Taxation, Entry of Judgment, Execution 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
Republic
Applicant
Nicholas Ouma Ounda
Respondent
Matilda Achieng Aiyera
Respondent
Richard Omuma Ouguindi
Respondent
Dennis Okidi
Respondent
Maurice Otieno
Respondent
Brian Njau & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Adopt Certificate of Taxation as Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the certificate of taxation should be adopted as judgment in favour of the advocate.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed amount as per the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to execute against the respondents for the taxed costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant/advocate had obtained a certificate of taxation for Kshs. 883,866.30, which had not been challenged, set aside, or altered by the respondents. In accordance with Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and the cited case law, the court held that it was proper to adopt the certificate of taxation as judgment without the need for a separate suit for recovery. The court further held that the applicant was entitled to interest at 14% per annum on the taxed amount, calculable after thirty days from service of the bill of costs, as provided under Paragraph 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Since the application was unopposed and the respondents had failed to...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Judgment entered for the applicant/advocate for the taxed sum with interest and costs.
Orders
- Judgment is entered for the applicant/advocate against the respondents/clients for Kshs. 883,866.30 in line with the certificate of taxation dated 8th November 2023, with interest at 14% per annum calculable after thirty days from service of the bill of costs being 14th March 2023, until payment in full.
- The applicant is at liberty to execute the judgment against the respondents/clients.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
Republic v Ounda & 4 others; Brian Njau & Co. Advocates (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 8076 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (27 June 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 8076 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Judicial Review
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2023
JM Chigiti, J
June 27, 2024
Between
Republic
Applicant
and
Nicholas Ouma Ounda
1st Respondent
Matilda Achieng Aiyera
2nd Respondent
Richard Omuma Ouguindi
3rd Respondent
Dennis Okidi
4th Respondent
Maurice Otieno
5th Respondent
and
Brian Njau & Co. Advocates
Exparte Applicant
Ruling
1. The application before this court is the one dated 8th February, 2024 wherein the applicant seeks ORDERS:a.Spent.b.That the Honourable Court be pleased to adopt and enter Judgment for the Applicant/Advocate against the Respondents/Clients for the sum of Kshs. 883,866. 301= as appears on the Certificate of Taxation dated 8th November 2023 with interest on the taxed amount at the rate of fourteen (14%) per cent per annum calculable after thirty (30) days from service of the Bill of Costs being 14th March 2023, until payment in full.c.That the Applicant/Advocate be allowed to execute the Judgment against the Respondents/Clients.d.That costs of this Application be borne by the Respondents/Clients.
2. The Applicant/Advocate filed a Bill of Costs dated 2nd March 2023 which was thereafter at Kshs. 883,866. 301= on 31st October 2023.
3. A Certificate of Taxation dated 13th November 2023 in favour of the Applicant for the sum of Kshs. 883,866. 30/=.
4. That pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order the Applicant is entitled to charge interest at (14%) per cent per annum calculable after thirty (30) days from service of the Bill of Costs being 14th March 2023, until payment in full.
5. The Ruling delivered on 9th October 2023, Ruling delivered on 31st October 2023 and Certificate of Taxation dated 8th November 2023 but have deliberately failed and/or neglected to settle the same.
6. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the Certificate of Taxation dated 8th November 2023 ought to be adopted and entered as Judgment prior to legally commencing the execution process.
7. The Application is not opposed.
8. In the case of Otieno t/a OM Otieno & Co Advocates v African Merchant Assurance Company Limited; Lubulellah & Associates Advocates vs N.K. Brothers Limited 120141eKLR which was cited by the Court of Appeal in the case of Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates vs Kenya Airports Authority [20211 eKLR, it was held that:“Once a certificate of costs was issued and there was no reference against the decision of the taxing master, and the certificate of costs had not been set aside and/or altered, no other action was required save for entry of judgment by the court and that no suit for recovery of costs was required.”
9. The Applicant also sought an order that the Applicant/Advocate be allowed to execute the Judgment against the Respondents/Clients.
10. The applicant is at liberty to initiate appropriate execution proceedings.
Costs: 11. Costs follow the event and it is this court’s finding that the applicant is entitled to costs
Disposition: 12. It is this court’s finding and I so hold that the applicant has made out a case for the grant of the order sort.
Order: 13. 1.Judgment is hereby entered for the Applicant/Advocate against the Respondents/Clients for the sum of Kshs. 883,866. 301= in line with the Certificate of Taxation dated 8th November 2023 with interest on the taxed amount at the rate of fourteen (14%) per cent per annum calculable after thirty (30) days from service of the Bill of Costs being 14th March 2023, until payment in full.2. Costs to the Applicant.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024. ………………………………………CHIGITI. J (SC)JUDGE