[2021] KEHC 794 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent admitted the debt as certified in the certificate of taxation and failed to provide any valid legal reason or objection to the entry of judgment. Budgetary constraints and ongoing negotiations do not constitute a legal basis to resist judgment on taxed costs. Accordingly, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 794 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Prof. Tom Ojienda & Associates; Respondent: Narok County Government
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 60 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- J Ngaah
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bill, Certificate of Taxation, Execution of Judgment
- 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
Prof. Tom Ojienda & Associates
Applicant
Narok County Government
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment for the sum certified in the certificate of taxation.
- 2 Whether the respondent has provided any valid legal reason to resist entry of judgment on the taxed costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent admitted the debt as certified in the certificate of taxation and failed to provide any valid legal reason or objection to the entry of judgment. Budgetary constraints and ongoing negotiations do not constitute a legal basis to resist judgment on taxed costs. Accordingly, the applicant was entitled to judgment for the certified sum, and the application was allowed in terms of the primary prayer for judgment. Execution would follow as a matter of course, and the applicant was awarded costs of the application.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Judgment entered for the applicant against the respondent for Kshs. 14,244,293 as per the certificate of taxation dated 26th October, 2018, with interest from the date of filing until payment in full.
- Applicant awarded costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 60 OF 2017
PROF. TOM OJIENDA & ASSOCIATES................................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
NAROK COUNTY GOVERNMENT....................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicant’s application is the motion dated 30 April 2019; it is made under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act cap. 16 and seeks for the following orders:
“
1. That this honourable court be pleased to enter judgment of the applicant against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 14, 244,293/= (Kenya shillings Fourteen million two hundred and forty four thousand two hundred and ninety three Only) against the respondent is at appears in the certificate of taxation dated 26th October, 2018 with interest from the date of filing of this application until payment in full.
2. That the Applicant be allowed to execute the judgment herein against the Respondent, Narok County.
3. That the costs of this application be provided for.”
The application is supported by the affidavit of Prof. Tom Ojienda sworn on 30 April 2019.
Prof. Ojienda has sworn that his firm of advocates represented the respondent in High Court Petition No. 424 of 2015. At the conclusion of the petition, he submitted his advocate-client bill of costs for taxation; it was eventually taxed at Kshs. 14, 244, 293/=. A certificate of taxation dated 26 October 2018 has been exhibited certifying the extent to which the bill was allowed.
It is the applicant’s case that the respondent has declined to settle the amount due to him hence the present application.
The respondent opposed the application and filed a replying affidavit. The affidavit was sworn by Elizabeth Sanangoi Lolchoki, in her capacity as the County Secretary of the County Government of Narok.
The respondent does not dispute it owes the applicant the sum of Kshs. 14,244,293/=; as matter of fact, this sum is admitted as owing. To quote Lolchoki, she has sworn in paragraph 4 of the affidavit as follows:
“That I am aware that the respondent herein, the County Government of Narok, through the office of the Governor has been in negotiations with Professor Tom Ojienda on modalities of remitting the sum of Kshs. 14, 244, 293/= as taxed on 27th September, 2018 and that the said negotiations are still underway.”
The only reason given why the respondent has not settled the amount due is what one would call budgetary constraints of the respondent. This is revealed in paragraph 11 of the affidavit where it has been sworn as follows:
“That as it stands, the County Government’s accounts are limited and cannot sustain the full payment of the pending bill in this matter as well as that in JR. Misc. Application No. 59 of 2017 which was taxed at Kshs. 8,842,648. 00”.
In a nutshell, though the respondent filed a replying affidavit, no valid reason has been given why judgment should not be entered against it as prayed by the applicant. Considering that the respondent admits the amount due the application is, in effect, unopposed.
In the circumstances, I allow the application in terms of prayer 1 of the motion. Prayer 2 is unnecessary as execution would follow as a matter of course. The applicant shall also have costs of the application. It is so ordered.
SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED ON 17TH DECEMBER, 2021
NGAAH JAIRUS
JUDGE