[2023] KEHC 22952 (KLR)
The court held that only the High Court has jurisdiction to enter judgment on a certificate of taxation under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. The consent order by which a magistrate purported to enter judgment on taxed costs was unprocedural and invalid. Consequently, the applicant could not rely on such an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 22952 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ringera Geoffrey Gatari t/a Gatari Ringera & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Meru County Government; Respondent: County Executive Member for Finance, County Government of Meru; Respondent: The Chief Officer Finance, County Government of Meru; Respondent: County Attorney County Government of Meru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review E001 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/strike Out
- Outcome
- suit struck out
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Certificate of Taxation, Entry of Judgment, Jurisdiction of High Court, Procedural Irregularity
- 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
Ringera Geoffrey Gatari t/a Gatari Ringera & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Meru County Government
Respondent
County Executive Member for Finance, County Government of Meru
Respondent
The Chief Officer Finance, County Government of Meru
Respondent
County Attorney County Government of Meru
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/strike Out
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can enforce a certificate of taxation where judgment was entered by a magistrate's court.
- 2 Whether the suit was properly filed in the High Court at Meru instead of Chuka.
- 3 Whether the applicant can rely on a consent order from a magistrate to enforce taxed costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that only the High Court has jurisdiction to enter judgment on a certificate of taxation under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. The consent order by which a magistrate purported to enter judgment on taxed costs was unprocedural and invalid. Consequently, the applicant could not rely on such an order to enforce a nonexistent judgment against the respondents. Furthermore, since the subject suit by which the applicant's costs were taxed was CHUKA ELC CASE NO. 4 OF 2018, any suit arising from those taxed costs ought to have been filed in the High Court at Chuka, not Meru. The suit was therefore filed unprocedurally and prematurely, warranting its striking out.
Court Disposition
suit struck out
Orders
- The suit is struck out as unprocedurally and prematurely filed.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Ringera Geoffrey Gatari t/a Gatari Ringera & Co. Advocates v Meru County Government & 3 others (Judicial Review E001 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 22952 (KLR) (28 September 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 22952 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Judicial Review E001 of 2023
TW Cherere, J
September 28, 2023
Between
Ringera Geoffrey Gatari t/a Gatari Ringera & Co. Advocates
Applicant
and
Meru County Government
1st Respondent
County Executive Member for Finance, County Government of Meru
2nd Respondent
The Chief Officer Finance, County Government of Meru
3rd Respondent
County Attorney County Government of Meru
4th Respondent
Ruling
1. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act Section 51 of the Act makes general provisions for entry of judgment on a Certificate of Taxation which has not been set aside or altered where there is no dispute as to retainer in the following terms: -“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.”
2. Section 2 of the Actdefines the “Court” to mean the High Court. The consent order dated 06th January, 2023 by which a magistrate purported to enter judgment on taxed costs was unprocedural and the Applicant cannot rely on such an order to enforced a nonexistent judgment as against the Respondents.
3. Finally, the subject suit by which the Applicant’s costs were taxed is CHUKA ELC CASE NO. 4 OF 2018 and any suit arising from taxed costs ought to have been filed in the High Court at Chuka.
4. For the reasons given in the foregoing analysis, I find that this suit was filed unprocedurally and prematurely and it is struck out.
5. Each party shall bear its own costs
DATED AT MERU THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistant - Morris KinotiFor Applicant - Mr. Kimathi for L.Kimathi Kiara & Co. AdvocatesFor Respondents - Mr. Mwirigi for Mwirigi Nzomo &Co. Advocates