Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v Kisumu Municipal Council [2017] KEHC 3666 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO 317 OF 2015

OTIENO, RAGOT & COMPANY ADVOCATES……......………..APPLICANT

VERSUS

KISUMU MUNICIPAL COUNCIL…...........................................RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

By a notice of motion dated 3. 3.17, brought under Section 51 of the Advocates Act Cap 16 Laws of Kenya; the applicant prays for orders:-

a. THAT the certificate of costs dated 20. 2.17 in respect of the order made on 20. 2.17 for the sum of Kshs. 234,892. 46 be adopted as judgment and decree of this Honourable Court

b. THAT the applicant be awarded interest accrued on the costs at 14% per annum from 9. 7.12 until payment in full

c. THAT the costs of this application be borne by client/respondent

The motion is premised on the grounds on the body of the application and the supporting affidavit of David Otieno, Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, sworn on 3. 3.17. He avers that the client instructed the advocate to act for it in Kisumu Misc. Application No. 14 of 2010. That the bill of costs was taxed on 20. 2.17 for the sum of Kshs. 234,892. 46 and a certificate of taxation was issued for the said sum. That the client has not paid the said amount and the applicant requests for judgment for the entire sum.

When the application came for hearing on 26. 7.17, Mr. Osodo appeared for the applicant. Mr. Emukule appeared for Mr. Rodi for the respondent. No response had been filed and the application is therefore not opposed.

In the case of Musyoka & Wambua Advocates Vs Rustam Hira Advocate (2006) eKLR it was held: -

“Section 51 of the Act makes general provisions as to taxation, as the marginal note indicates. One of those provisions is that the court has discretion to enter judgment on a Certificate of Taxation which has not been set aside or altered, where there is no dispute as to retainer. This in my view is a mode of recovery of taxed costs provided by law, in addition to filing of suit......

In the present case, there is no allegation that the Advocate had no instructions to act for the client in Kisumu Misc. Application No. 14 of 2010 for which costs were taxed and so, there is not, and there cannot be, a dispute as to retainer. As it stands now the Certificate of Taxation has not been set aside or altered. In the circumstances, I see no reason to deny the Advocate, judgment as sought.

I have considered the provisions of Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order which provides: -

“An advocate may charge interest at 14% 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.”

The rate of interest awardable is 14% per annum applicable from 30 days after the date of service of either the Bill of Costs. There is evidence that the bill of costs was received by the respondent on 25. 1.16 and thirty (30) days from the delivery of the bill to the client expired on 24. 2.16.

The upshot of this is that the notice of motion dated 3. 3.17 succeeds and is allowed in the following terms:

a)Judgment is hereby entered for the advocate against the Respondent for Kshs. 234,892. 46

b) Interest shall accrue on the taxed costs at 14% per annum from 24. 2.16 until payment in full

c) The Advocate will also have the costs of this application.

DATED AND DELIVERED ON THIS27thDAY OF July 2017

T.W. CHERERE

JUDGE

Read in open court in the presence of-

Court Assistant    -  Felix

Applicant               -  Mr Amule/Mr Osodo

Respondent         -  N/A