[2005] KEHC 941 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was duly instructed by the respondent, as evidenced by the letter of instructions and the unchallenged affidavit. There was no dispute as to the retainer. The Certificate of Taxation had not been set aside or altered and was therefore final as to the amount of costs. Under Section...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 941 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Wainaina Ireri & Co. Advocates; Defendant: Kenya Bus Services Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 222 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for applicant
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Remuneration, Certificate of Taxation, Retainer Dispute, 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
Wainaina Ireri & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Kenya Bus Services Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment based on the Certificate of Taxation under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
- 2 Whether there was a dispute as to the applicant's retainer by the respondent.
- 3 From what date interest on the taxed costs is payable under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was duly instructed by the respondent, as evidenced by the letter of instructions and the unchallenged affidavit. There was no dispute as to the retainer. The Certificate of Taxation had not been set aside or altered and was therefore final as to the amount of costs. Under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the applicant was entitled to judgment for the sum certified in the Certificate of Taxation. Regarding interest, the court held that interest at 9% per annum was payable from one month after the delivery of the bill, not from the date of tendering the fee note. The applicant was thus awarded interest from 25th December 2002 until payment in full, as...
Court Disposition
judgment for applicant
Orders
- Judgment entered for the applicant in the sum of Kshs.34,760.50 as per the Certificate of Taxation.
- Interest awarded at 9% per annum from 25th December 2002 until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
Misc Appli 222 of 2005
WAINAINA IRERI & CO. ADVOCATES………………..………..……APPLICANT
VERSUS
KENYA BUS SERVICES LIMITED ……………………………….… DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
The applicant is a firm of advocates, Wainaina Ireri & Company Advocates. They have moved the court under the provisions of Section 51 (1) and (2) of the Advocates Act. Essentially, the applicant seeks an order that judgement be granted in its favour, it terms of the Certificate of Taxation. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act stipulates as follows;
"The certificate of the taxing officer by whom any bill has been taxed shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the Court, be final as to the amount of costs covered thereby, and the court may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including, in a case where the retainer is not disputed, an order that judgement be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs." In the light of that statutory provision, the applicant believes that it is entitled to judgement. In support of the application, the applicant filed an affidavit of Mr. David W. Ireri, advocate.
By the said affidavit, the applicant has satisfied me that the firm was duly instructed by American Life Insurance Company (Kenya) Ltd., by way of a letter dated 7th November 2001. The said insurance company was the insurer of the respondent herein, who was the defendant in CMCC NO. 9459 OF 2001, SOLOMON K. BUNYALI –VS- KENYA BUS SERVICES LIMITED. Through the letter of instructions, the applicant had demonstrated that it was duly instructed by the respondent. Accordingly, I do hold that there was no dispute as to the applicant's retainer.
However, I hasten to add that my finding on that issue is not guided solely by the fact that the applicant had made available to the court, a copy of the letter of instructions. The position is that Mr. David W. Ireri has deponed, in his affidavit, that his firm had been instructed to act for the respondent. That fact was not challenged by the respondent. Therefore, even if the applicant had not actually exhibited the letter of instructions, I would still have been persuaded that there was no dispute as to the retainer.
In other words, I hold the considered view that it is not mandatory for the advocate to exhibit the letter of instructions. However, in instances where instructions were in writing, it would certainly help the advocate's case if they did make it available to the court. Now, in this case, I have also perused the Certificate of Taxation, as well as the record of the proceedings before the learned taxing officer. I am satisfied that there was no alteration to the Certificate of Taxation. Also, there is no order setting aside the said certificate.
Accordingly, the said Certificate of Taxation, dated 1st August 2005 is final as to the costs cited in it, being Kshs.34,760/50. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, I am satisfied that the applicant is entitled to judgement in the sum of Kshs.34,760. 50/=; and I do therefore grant judgment accordingly. The applicant has also asked for interest at the rate of 9% per annum, in accordance with Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. That rule provides as follows;
"An advocate may charge interest at 9 per cent per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, providing such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full." In this case, the applicant seeks for interest from 25th November 2002, when it tendered the fee note to the respondent.
I am afraid that interest is not payable from the date when the bill is tendered, but from a month thereafter. Accordingly, the applicant is awarded interest on the taxed costs, from 25th December 2002, until payment in full. Finally, the applicant is awarded costs of the application dated 11th August 2005.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this18th day of November 2005.
FRED A. OCHIENG
JUDGE