[2023] KEELC 20120 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 20120 (KLR)

The court found that the relationship between advocate and client is contractual and subject to the Limitation of Actions Act. However, the evidence showed ongoing correspondence between the parties regarding payment of fees well past 2009, and there was no evidence that the retainer had been terminated in 2009. In...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 20120 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: V Chokaa & Co Advocates; Respondent: County Government Of Mombasa
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E012 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs and Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Application allowed; preliminary objection dismissed; judgment entered for applicant as prayed.
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Advocate Client Costs, Limitation of Actions, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Advocate Client Costs Limitation of Actions Taxation of Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

V Chokaa & Co Advocates

Applicant

County Government Of Mombasa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs and Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the advocate-client bill of costs is statute barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment for the taxed costs as per the certificate of taxation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the relationship between advocate and client is contractual and subject to the Limitation of Actions Act. However, the evidence showed ongoing correspondence between the parties regarding payment of fees well past 2009, and there was no evidence that the retainer had been terminated in 2009. In the absence of proof of termination, the court could not assume the bill was filed outside the limitation period. Therefore, the respondent's preliminary objection on limitation grounds was not merited. The applicant was entitled to judgment for the taxed costs as per the certificate of taxation, as the respondent had not set aside or altered the taxed amount and had no valid...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; preliminary objection dismissed; judgment entered for applicant as prayed.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the applicant against the respondent in the sum of Kshs 210,296.71 in accordance with the certificate of taxation.
  • The respondent to pay the applicant the said sum together with interest at 14% per annum from February 14, 2022 until payment in full.