Joseph Mwirigi Kaburu t/a Mwirigi Kaburu & Co. Advocates v County Government of Meru [2024] KEELC 6886 (KLR)

Joseph Mwirigi Kaburu t/a Mwirigi Kaburu & Co. Advocates v County Government of Meru (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 19 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6886 (KLR) (16 October 2024) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 6886 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Meru

Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 19 of 2023

CK Nzili, J

October 16, 2024

Between

Joseph Mwirigi Kaburu t/a Mwirigi Kaburu & Co. Advocates

Applicant

and

County Government of Meru

Respondent

Judgment

1. The applicant asks the court through an application dated 31. 7.2024 to enter judgment for Kshs.939,600/= against the respondent, following a certificate of taxation dated 1. 7.2024, with interest from the date of filing this application until payment in full. The reasons are contained on the face of the application and a supporting affidavit of Mwirigi Kaburu sworn on 31. 7.2024. In the said affidavit, the applicant has attached the bill of costs dated 31. 10. 2023, objection by the respondent dated 6. 2.2024, ruling delivered on 23. 5.2024 by the taxing master and a certificate of costs dated 10. 7.2024 all marked as annexures MK "1", "2", "3" & "4" respectively.

2. The applicant avers on oath that his law firm defended the respondent's interests in Meru CMCC No. 421 of 2014.

3. There was no response to the application despite the service upon the respondent. The applicant relied on written submissions dated 13. 8.2024. Reliance was placed on Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act, Gichuki Kingara & Co. Advocates vs Mugoya Construction and Engineering Ltd [2015] eKLR and Macharia Njeri Advocate v CCK as cited in Kagwimi Kang'ethe & Co. Advocates v Penelope Combos & another [2014] eKLR, Kunjuga v Kangaru & another (Misc Application E011 of 2022 [2023] KEELC 246 (Ruling) 26th January 2023 and Mario Rossi v Salama Beach Hotel Ltd (2018) eKLR.

4. The issues calling for my determination:a.Whether the certificate of costs dated 31. 7.2024 should be adopted as a judgment of this court.b.Whether the court should award interest on the resultant judgment and decree from 31. 7.2024 at 14% per annum.

5. Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act provides that a certificate of the taxing officer by whom any bill has been taxed shall unless set aside or altered by the court, be final as to the amount of the costs covered thereby and the court where the retainer is not disputed can issue an order that judgment be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.

6. Any party aggrieved by a decision by the taxing officer has a right to file a reference in the High Court seeking to set aside the taxed bill under paragraph 11 of the Advocate's Remuneration Order 2014. As to interest, Paragraph 7 of the Advocate's Remuneration Order provides that an advocate may charge interest at 14% of his disbursements and costs from the expiration one month from the delivery of his bill to the client. See Otieno Ragot & Co. Advocates v National Bank of Kenya [2022] eKLR.

7. In Musyoka & Wambua Advocates v Rustam Hira Advocate [2006] eKLR, the court observed that it had jurisdiction to enter judgment where there was no dispute as to the retainer. Further, in Lubulellah and Associates Advocates vs N.K Brother Limited (2014) eKLR, the court observed that once costs have taken place with no reference filed against it, the court would be in order to enter judgment in favour of the applicant against the respondent.

8. In Lubullelah & Associates Advocates v Vinayak Builders Ltd Commercial Misc E599 of 2022 [2024] KEHC 6287 (KLR) Commercial and Tax (15th May 2024) (Ruling), the court held that any party intending to challenge a certificate of costs must follow Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014. The court cited with approval Lesinko Njoroge & Gathogo advocate vs Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd [2021] eKLR that Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act aims in the expeditious disposal of cases relating to recovery of advocates' client costs so long as the costs have been certified under the hand of the taxing master, if the certificate has not been set aside, stayed or appealed against and lastly, if there is no dispute as to the retainer.

9. In this application, the applicant has attached MK "1", "2", "3" & "4" as exhibits to show that all the procedural aspects under Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act have been met. The respondent has not filed a reference or an appeal against the certificate of costs or disputed that there was a retainer of instructions to the applicant in respect of Meru CMC No. 421 of 2014.

10. In the absence of the said opposition, I am satisfied that the applicant has met the principles distilled from the cited case law of Kagwimi Kang’ethe (supra) and Kunjuga (supra). Consequently, judgment against the respondent in favor of the applicant is as a result of this entered for a sum of Kshs.939,600/= with interest at the rate of 14% per annum with effect from 31. 7.2024 until payment in full.

DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT MERUON THIS 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024In presence ofC.A KananuMwirigi Kaburu for the applicantHON. C K NZILIJUDGE