Mbugwa, Atudo & Macharia Advocates v Kenya Alliance Insurance Co Ltd [2023] KEHC 2524 (KLR) | Advocate Client Costs | Esheria

Mbugwa, Atudo & Macharia Advocates v Kenya Alliance Insurance Co Ltd [2023] KEHC 2524 (KLR)

Full Case Text

Mbugwa, Atudo & Macharia Advocates v Kenya Alliance Insurance Co Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 2524 (KLR) (28 March 2023) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 2524 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Homa Bay

Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2022

KW Kiarie, J

March 28, 2023

Between

Mbugwa, Atudo & Macharia Advocates

Applicant

and

Kenya Alliance Insurance Co Ltd

Respondent

Ruling

1. The applicant moved the court by way of Notice of Motion dated October 17, 2022 under sections 51 (2) of the Advocates Act & schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order as well as under Order 51 Rule 1 of theCivil Procedure Rules, 2010. The applicant is seeking the following orders:a.That judgment be and is hereby entered or kshs 186,243/- for the taxed advocate/client bill of costs as contained in the Certificate of Costs dated July 8, 2022 with interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum with effect from June 3, 2016 until payment in full.b.That costs of the application be and is herein be awarded to the advocate/applicant.

2. The application is premised on the following grounds:a.That the applicant was issued with a certificate of costs of his costs arising from the applicant’s representation of the respondent in Oyugis Civil Suit No 56 of 2016 in the matter Marvin Odhiambo vs Mary Akinyi.b.That the Certificate of Costs dated July 8, 2022 has neither been settled nor has it been set aside and or varied through an order of this honorable court.c.That there is no dispute on retainer between the parties.d.That despite demand, the advocate/applicant has been denied legal fees, disbursements and other related expenses by the respondent for an extended period of time and the monetary value of the legal fees has been grossly eroded by the incidence of inflation over the years, hence the advocate/applicant’s claim for interest.e.That it is in the interest of justice that the orders sough herein be granted.

3. The respondent was served but did not respond to the application.

4. I have perused the record and the supporting affidavit of Pinto Nelson Atudo. I find the application has merits. The same is allowed with costs.

Delivered and signed at Homa Bay this 28th day of March, 2023KIARIE WAWERU KIARIEJUDGE.