S. Gichuki Waigwa & Associates v Liam Telecommunications Ltd & 3 others [2017] KEELC 2204 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court entered judgment of Kshs. 881,073.80 against clients who delayed too long to challenge their advocate's taxed fees, blaming their own lawyer.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether leave should be granted to the Respondents to object to the taxation out of time
Leave refused; the Respondents knew of the taxed costs from May 2016, made a settlement offer in July 2016, and gave no plausible reason for the delay.
The court found the Respondents were notified of the taxation ruling by their advocates and directly of the outcome in May 2016. After their offer to pay Kshs. 300,000 in instalments was rejected on 2nd August 2016, they took no action until filing the application on 14th September 2016, almost four months after the offer. The court held that extension of time is discretionary and must accord with the overriding objective of just, expeditious and timely determination; no plausible explanation for the delay was offered, so the discretion could not be exercised in their favour.
Whether judgment should be entered for the Applicant on the certificate of taxation
Judgment entered for the Applicant for the taxed sum of Kshs. 881,073.80 pursuant to the certificate of taxation dated 18th May 2016.
Having dismissed the Respondents' application for leave to object out of time, and there being no pending challenge to the taxation, the certificate of taxation stood unchallenged. The court found the Advocate had rendered services on the Respondents' instructions in the matter of the threatened sale of L.R. No. 1160/416 by Commercial Bank of Africa, and that the bill of costs had been taxed and allowed. Judgment pursuant to the certificate followed as the ordinary consequence.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time to challenge a taxing master's decision requires a plausible reason for the delay; knowledge of the taxation and inaction disentitles a party to leave.
- The overriding objective requires just determination of proceedings in a timely manner, which informs the exercise of discretion on extension of time.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondents' application dated 9th September 2016 for leave to object to the taxation out of time is dismissed with costs to the Applicant
- 2.The Applicant's application dated 2nd June 2016 is allowed
- 3.Judgment is entered for the Applicant against the Respondents pursuant to the certificate of taxation dated 18th May 2016 (Kshs. 881,073.80)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and the Advocate's Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "S. Gichuki Waigwa & Associates v Liam Telecommunications Ltd & 3 others [2017] KEELC 2204 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in judgment (ruling on applications dated 2nd June 2016 and 9th September 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2204/eng@2017-07-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.