[2006] KEHC 2110 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was entitled to summary judgment for the taxed costs as there was no dispute as to retainer, the bill of costs was taxed by consent, and the respondent participated in the taxation process. The certificate of taxation was conclusive evidence of the amount due. Regarding interest,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2110 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Sankale Ole Kantai t/a Kantai & Company Advocates; Respondent: Kenya Bus Services Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1048 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Summary Judgment Based on Certificate of Taxation
- Outcome
- Judgment for the applicant for the taxed costs and interest; costs of the application awarded to the applicant.
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Certificate of Taxation, Summary Judgment, 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
Sankale Ole Kantai t/a Kantai & Company Advocates
Applicant
Kenya Bus Services Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Summary Judgment Based on Certificate of Taxation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to summary judgment based on the certificate of taxation.
- 2 Whether interest on the taxed costs should be awarded, and from what date.
- 3 Whether there is any dispute as to retainer between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was entitled to summary judgment for the taxed costs as there was no dispute as to retainer, the bill of costs was taxed by consent, and the respondent participated in the taxation process. The certificate of taxation was conclusive evidence of the amount due. Regarding interest, the court held that interest at 9% per annum was payable from 20th February 2006, being one month after the date the bill of costs was served on the respondent, as there was no evidence of an earlier demand. The court exercised its discretion under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order to grant the orders sought.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the applicant for the taxed costs and interest; costs of the application awarded to the applicant.
Orders
- Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant for KShs. 56,758.80.
- The taxed costs shall attract interest at 9% per annum from 20th February 2006.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Misc Appli 1048 of 2005
SANKALE OLE KANTAI T/A KANTAI & COMPANY ADVOCATES ........…..APPLICANT
AND
KENYA BUS SERVICES LIMITED…….................................………….RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The applicant is a firm of advocates. They have brought this application pursuant to the provisions of Section 51(1) and (2) of the Advocates Act, as read together with Order 50 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Basically, the applicant is seeking summary judgement, pursuant to a Certificate of Taxation which was issued by the learned taxing officer on 24th March 2006. The applicant also asks that they be awarded interest on the taxed costs, at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date when the Bill of Costs was taxed.
From the affidavit of Mr. Sankale Ole Kantai, it is clear that the Bill of Costs was taxed by consent, on 16th March 2006. And from the Certificate of Taxation, which is annexed to Mr. Kantai’s affidavit, it is clear that the applicant was awarded costs amounting to Kshs. 56,758/80.
The respondent has not disputed Mr. Kantai’s deposition that they had instructed the applicant to act for them in NAIROBI CMCC No. 11752 of 2004.
Furthermore, the applicant did exhibit the Plaint and Defence in that case, from which it is clear that the applicant did prepare the Defence.
Those facts, coupled with the fact that the respondent participated in the taxation, and consented to the sum for which the bill of costs was taxed, satisfies me that there is no dispute as to retainer.
In the circumstances, I am satisfied that this is a fit and proper case to warrant the exercise of this court’s discretion, pursuant to the provisions of Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. Accordingly, I do hereby grant judgement in favour of the applicant, for KShs. 56,758/80.
As regards the applicant’s prayer for interest, I note that the affidavit of service of James A. Abushila, which was sworn on 26th January 2006, states that the Bill of Costs was served upon the respondent on 19th January 2006. Even though the applicant may have served the respondent with a feenote prior to 19th January 2006, there is no evidence before me to prove it. Therefore, I am prepared to accept the date when the respondent was served with the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs, as the date when the applicant demanded payment for their fees.
In the circumstances, I order that the taxed costs shall attract interest at 9% per annum from 20th February 2006, which would be a date that is more than one month from the date when the bill was delivered to the client. This award of interest is made pursuant to the provisions of Rule 7 of The Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
Finally, the costs of the application dated 29th March 2006 are awarded to the applicant.
Dated Delivered at Nairobi this 20tth day of June 2006.
FRED A. OCHIENG
JUDGE