[2024] KEHC 5695 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 5695 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 11(1) of the Advocate Remuneration Rules by not specifying the items objected to in the taxed bill of costs. The only objection raised was general and did not address specific items, which is insufficient to invoke the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 5695 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Robinson Onyango Malombo t/a O.M. Robinson & Company Advocates; Respondent: NIC Bank Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Case E076 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Chamber Summons Challenging Taxation
Outcome
application dismissed; judgment entered for advocate
Judges
DKN Magare
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Advocate Remuneration, Jurisdiction of Court
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Taxation of Costs Advocate Remuneration Jurisdiction of Court

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robinson Onyango Malombo t/a O.M. Robinson & Company Advocates

Applicant

NIC Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Chamber Summons Challenging Taxation

  1. 1 Whether the applicant properly objected to the taxed bill of costs as required by law.
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the objection in the absence of specific itemized objections.
  3. 3 Whether the application dated 19/2/2024 discloses valid grounds for setting aside the taxed bill.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 11(1) of the Advocate Remuneration Rules by not specifying the items objected to in the taxed bill of costs. The only objection raised was general and did not address specific items, which is insufficient to invoke the court's jurisdiction to review the taxation. The court emphasized that jurisdiction is everything and cannot be assumed where none exists. As there was no valid objection, the application dated 19/2/2024 was dismissed, and judgment was entered for the advocate for the taxed amount, with costs and interest.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; judgment entered for advocate

Orders

  • The application dated 19/2/2024 is dismissed with costs of Kshs. 20,000.
  • Judgment is entered for Kshs. 14,586,718.33 in favour of the advocate.