Jones Nyachiro t/a M/S Nyachiro Nyagaka & Company v Nyamira County Government [2022] KEHC 10177 (KLR)

Jones Nyachiro t/a M/S Nyachiro Nyagaka & Company v Nyamira County Government (Miscellaneous Civil Case E001 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 10177 (KLR) (6 July 2022) (Directions)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 10177 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nyamira

Miscellaneous Civil Case E001 of 2022

FA Ochieng, J

July 6, 2022

Between

Jones Nyachiro t/a M/S Nyachiro Nyagaka & Company

Applicant

and

Nyamira County Government

Respondent

Directions

1. On 14th June 2022, the court gave directions on the application dated 20th April 2022.

2. By that application, the Law Firm of Jones Nyachiro T/a Nyachiro Nyagaka And Company Advocates, invoked the provisions of Paragraph 51 (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, as read with Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

3. The main relief sought by the application was that judgement be entered for the Applicant in terms of the sums specified in terms of the Certificate of Costs which the Learned Taxing Officer had issued after the taxation of the Advocate – Clientbill of Costs.

4. Prior to the issuance of the directions on 14th June 2022, the Respondent, Nyamira County Government, told this court that it had filed an application dated 13th June 2022, seeking a stay of the proceedings herein. However, Mr. Nyachiro, the Learned Advocate for the Applicant informed the court that he had not been served with the application dated 13th June 2022.

5. I reminded Miss Wanjohi, the Learned Advocate for the Respondent, that her client had earlier been allowed until 19th May 2022 to file and serve its Replying Affidavit.

6. The Respondent tendered an apology for the delay in filing the Replying Affidavit. And Miss Wanjohi Advocate told the court that she was undertaking personal responsibility for ensuring that the affidavit was served.

7. In response to that undertaking, Mr. Nyachiro Advocate expressed the view that the Respondent was simply employing delaying tactics. His said view was primarily pegged upon the fact that Mr. Anyoka Advocate had participated in the taxation.

8. I understood the Applicant to be saying that the Respondent had been ably represented at the taxation. At that point in the proceedings of 14th June 2022 I indicated that whilst the Respondent had every right to take such steps as it deemed prudent, the court would not withhold the delivery of its Ruling on the application dated 20th April 2022.

9. On the next day, the Respondent filed an application under a Certificate of Urgency. The said application is dated 13th June 2022.

10. It was an application seeking the enlargement of time for filing a reference from taxation. The said application also sought the stay of the application dated 20th April 2022, until the court will have determined the application dated 13th June 2022.

11. The Applicant further requested the court to vary or set aside the Ruling dated 4th February 2022, in relation to the items 1 and 2 of the Bill of Costs dated 4th January 2022.

12. On 5th June 2022, I gave Directions on the application dated 13th June 2022, in the following terms: -(1)The application is fixed for mention on 7th July 2022 for further Directions.(2)The Applicant is to serve the Respondents forthwith.(3)The Respondents have 7 days from the date of service to file and serve their Replying Affidavits.(4)Within 4 days of service of the Replying Affidavits, the Applicant will file and serve their submissions.(5)The Respondents submissions will be filed and served within 4 days of service of the Applicant’s submissions.”

13. When giving those Directions, I took into account the fact that the court ought not to shut out an Applicant from making such application as the Applicant deems necessary. Of course, at all times, the court may, by an express Order, bar a party from filing further applications without prior leave of the court, especially when there had been a multiplicity of interlocutory applications. I did also take into account the fact that if the court proceeded to grant judgement in terms of the application dated 20th April 2022, when there was a pending application that could have a substantive impact of the said application, the Respondent would be prejudiced before the court had determined whether or not the issues challenging the ruling on taxation would be set aside.

14. It was for that reason that the Directions made on 15th June 2022, set down timelines for canvassing the Respondent’s application.

15. In my considered view, I would then determine that application expeditiously, to pave way for appropriate action to be taken on the application dated 20th April 2022. In other words, if the application dated 13th June 2022 were successful, that would seal the fate of the application dated 20th April 2022.

16. For the aforegoing reasons, the anticipated Rulings on the application dated 20th April 2022 cannot be delivered today.

17. These directions will apply to the following cases as well:a.HC Misc. Civil Case No. E002 of 2022;b.HC Misc. Civil Case No. E004 of 2022; andc.HC Misc. Civil Case No. E005 of 2022.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022. FRED A. OCHIENGJUDGE