[2007] KEHC 1751 (KLR)
The court held that the certificate of taxation is final and conclusive as to the amount of costs unless set aside or altered through the proper channels provided under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Since the respondent did not object to the taxation or raise the issue of retainer before the Taxing Officer,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 1751 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Willis O. Nyende t/a Nyende & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Kariuki & Gathecha Resources Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 377 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- Application granted; judgment entered for the applicant as prayed.
- Judges
- JM Khamoni
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Remuneration, Taxation of Costs, Certificate of Taxation Finality, Retainer Dispute, Judgment on Taxed 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
Willis O. Nyende t/a Nyende & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Kariuki & Gathecha Resources Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment for the taxed costs as per the certificate of taxation.
- 2 Whether issues regarding the retainer can be raised at the stage of judgment on taxed costs.
- 3 Whether the absence of an objection under paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order affects the finality of the certificate of taxation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the certificate of taxation is final and conclusive as to the amount of costs unless set aside or altered through the proper channels provided under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Since the respondent did not object to the taxation or raise the issue of retainer before the Taxing Officer, and no stay order was in place, the applicant was entitled to judgment for the taxed costs. The existence of a pending suit alleging negligence and a pending application for stay did not affect the applicant's right to judgment in the absence of an actual stay order. The court emphasized the separation between taxation proceedings and subsequent suits or objections, and that...
Court Disposition
Application granted; judgment entered for the applicant as prayed.
Orders
- Judgment is entered for the applicant in the sum of Kshs. 200,846 as per the certificate of taxation with interest at 14% per annum from 26th July 2007.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Misc Cause 377 of 2007
WILLIS O. NYENDE t/a NYENDE & CO. ADVOCATES.......................APPLICANT/ADVOCATE
Versus
KARIUKI & GATHECHA RESOURCES LTD.........….............................RESPONDENT/CLIENT
RULING
From what has been brought to my attention during the hearing of this Notice of Motion dated 1st August 2007 in the light of filed pleadings, the said Notice of Motion is hereby granted as prayed and since the Respondent in opposing the notice of Motion has raised a number of issues, reasons for my decision herein be given on 22nd October 2007.
Dated this 16th day of October 2007.
J. M. KHAMONI
JUDGE
REASONS FOR THE DECISION DATED 16TH OCTOBER 2007
On the 16th day of October 2007 I heard and decided the Notice of Motion dated 1st August 2007 in which Willis O. Nyende t/a Nyende & Company Advocates, prayed for judgment in "the sum of Kshs.200,846/= as per the Certificate of Taxation herein with interest at a rate of 14% per annum from the date of taxation" – which was 26th July 2007. In that decision I said will give my reasons for the decision on 22nd October 2007 and now these under are the reasons:
Firstly, the Applicant filed and prosecuted his bill of costs before the Taxing Officer in this same capacity in which he has filed this Notice of Motion. The Respondent participated fully in the taxation proceedings up to the end without raising the issue of a retainer.
Secondly, while accepting that the essence of an application for judgment under Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act is to confirm whether judgment should be entered in the sum of the taxed costs, the question whether the Applicant Advocate is entitled to those costs is a question which properly should start before the Taxing Officer for a decision by the Taxing Officer in order to be one of the issues in an objection which may be raised under paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, and ought to be raised before the Taxing Officer if the retainer is being disputed.
Thirdly, the finality of the Certificate of Taxation as to the amount of the costs covered thereby should be respected especially in circumstances like in this case where no objection has been raised under paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and the relevant certificate of taxation has neither been set aside nor altered; as properly in law, and as I recently said in this Court's Civil Case No. 532 of 2004, "Ahmednasir Abdikadir & Company, Advocates, -vs- National Bank of Kenya
ed;" (unreported), mid page 50 to top page 51, issues which were or ought to have been raised and determined upon objection in the High Court and/or appeal in the Court of Appeal under paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, ought not be raised in proceeding for judgment under Section 51 (2) as read with Section 49 of the Advocates Act. Such issues if brought ought to be regarded as res judicata or estopped or collateral attack because taxation proceedings are separate and distinct from proceedings in a suit to claim costs and that is why the law has opened a parallel channel which is followed by way of a reference under paragraph 12 or by way of an objection to the High Court and an appeal, where necessary, to the Court of Appeal under paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, to finally determine issues arising from taxation proceedings in that manner and in that manner only.
Fourthly, the fact that the Respondent in this case has filed HCCC No. 312 of 2007 against the Applicant in this case alleging negligence and other allegations should not cause confusion in these proceedings and a pending application in that suit for stay of this sit without there being an actual stay order is no stay order against these proceedings.
Dated this 22nd day of October 2007.
J. M. KHAMONI
JUDGE