[2020] KEHC 402 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant was entitled to judgment for the taxed costs as per the certificate of taxation because the respondent did not file a reference challenging the certificate. The respondent's participation in the taxation proceedings and failure to raise the issue of the applicant's employment status...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 402 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Rogers Mugumya; Respondent: Stegro Sacco Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 13 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Applications for Judgment on Taxed Costs and Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome
- judgment for applicant; respondent's application dismissed
- Judges
- AN Ongeri
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Certificate of Taxation, Stay of Proceedings
- 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
Rogers Mugumya
Appellant
Stegro Sacco Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Applications for Judgment on Taxed Costs and Stay of Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered in favour of the applicant for the taxed costs as per the certificate of taxation.
- 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to a stay of proceedings and setting aside of the taxing master's orders on the basis that the advocate was allegedly not retained or was an employee of the County Government.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant was entitled to judgment for the taxed costs as per the certificate of taxation because the respondent did not file a reference challenging the certificate. The respondent's participation in the taxation proceedings and failure to raise the issue of the applicant's employment status at the appropriate stage precluded them from raising it now. The application for stay and setting aside lacked merit and was dismissed. Judgment was entered for the applicant for the taxed sum with interest as specified.
Court Disposition
judgment for applicant; respondent's application dismissed
Orders
- Judgment entered in favour of the applicant against the respondent in the sum of Kshs.505,696 with interest at 14% per annum from 28/9/2018 until payment in full.
- Respondent's application dated 13/12/2019 dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
MISC. APPLICATION NO.13 OF 2018
ROGERS MUGUMYA............................................ADVOCATE/APPELLANT
-V E R S U S -
STEGRO SACCO LIMITED....................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. There are two Applications coming for consideration in this ruling which are as follows:-
(i) The Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 13/5/2019 seeking Judgment and a decree in respect of a bill of costs taxed in the sum of Kshs.505,696/= as per certificate of taxation issued on 28/9/2018 in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent.
(ii) The Respondent’s Notice of Motion dated 13/12/2019 seeking to stay of proceedings of the Taxing Master’s Orders and all consequential orders.
2. I find that the Application dated 13/5/2019 is not oppose and the same is according allowed.
3. The Respondent in the Application dated 13/5/2019 did not file a reference against the certificate of taxation.
4. Judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs.505,696 with interest at 14% per annum from 28/9/2018 until payment in full.
5. The Respondent is seeking stay of Proceedings and setting aside of the taxing Master’s Order and all consequential Orders on the grounds that the Applicant in the bill of costs was an Employee of the County Government of Bomet and an interested party in the proceedings and that he is not entitled to a retainer.
6. I find that the respondent participated in the taxation and the taxing Master noted that the Respondent objected to the bill of costs on the basis that it never instructed the Advocate.
7. The taxing Master found that the Advocate is entitled to the retainer. The Respondent did not file any referent from the bill of costs and it did not raise the issue that the Advocate was an Employee of the County Government and therefore not entitled to the retainer.
8. The Application dated 13/12/2019 lacks in merit and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs.
9. The Application dated 13/5/2019 is not oppose and the same is according allowed in the following terms:-
THAT Judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs.505,696 with interest at 14% per annum from 28/9/2018 until payment in full.
Dated, Delivered and Signed at Kericho this 18thday of September, 2020.
A. N. ONGERI
JUDGE