Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 17th September, 2019· [2020] KEELC 2670 (KLR)

Musyoka Murambi & Associates v Kenneth J. Kamau Ngigi;Coulson Harney Llp (Interested Party) [2020] KEELC 2670 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
12 May 2020
2,218 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court converted a lawyer's taxed fees into a judgment of over Kshs. 10.5 million, with 14% interest, and secured it against money held for the client.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, the firm of Musyoka Murambi & Associates, moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 17th September 2019 under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and Order 22 Rule 1 and Order 23 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking conversion of its Certificate of Costs dated 22nd May 2019 (Kshs. 10,534,628.00) into a decree and judgment, payment with interest at 14% per annum, and a priority charge over, and attachment of, monies held by the Interested Party, Coulson Harney LLP, being part of Kshs. 235,295,000 held on account of the purchase price of land parcel Kajiado/Dalalekutuk/1320, potentially due to the Respondent should he succeed in Kajiado ELC No. 197 of 2017 (Samuel Teeele Akute v Kenneth Kamau Ngigi and Others). The Bill of Costs had been taxed on 29th April 2019 and the certificate issued on 22nd May 2019 and served on 17th June 2019. Neither the Respondent nor the Interested Party filed a response; the retainer was never contested and the certificate had not been set aside or altered. The court framed two issues: whether the certificate should be converted into a decree with interest, and whether the advocate could enforce the judgment and attach the client's money held by the Interested Party. Relying on Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and the applied authorities, the court converted the certificate into a decree, awarded interest at 14% per annum from 22nd May 2019, declared the decretal sum plus interest and costs a priority charge over the monies held by the Interested Party in the event judgment is delivered in favour of the Respondent in the underlying suit, and awarded costs of the application to the Applicant. The judgment was delivered by Christine Ochieng, J, on 12th May 2020 via email.

Key legal issues

#
01

Conversion of a Certificate of Costs into a decree and judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act

Holding

Where the certificate of taxation has not been set aside or altered and the retainer is not disputed, the court will enter judgment for the sum certified and award interest at 14% per annum under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.

Reasoning

The court applied Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, under which the taxing officer's certificate is final as to the amount of costs unless set aside or altered. Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order permits interest at 14% per annum on costs from one month after delivery of the bill where the claim for interest is raised before payment. The Respondent and Interested Party filed no response, never sought to set aside the Bill of Costs, and the retainer was never contested, so the averments stood uncontroverted. The court associated itself with Musyoka & Wambua Advocates v Rustam Hira and Otieno Yogo & Company Advocates v Kisumu Water and Sewerage Co. Limited and allowed the conversion with interest.

p. 3
02

Whether the Interested Party holding funds potentially due to the Respondent can be treated as a Garnishee

Holding

An advocate-decree holder may attach a client's money held by a third party (the Interested Party) as a Garnishee, with the decretal sum constituting a priority charge over such monies.

Reasoning

The court applied Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which permits attachment of debts owed to a judgment-debtor by a third person (the garnishee). Relying on Orion East Africa v Mugama Farmers Cooperative Union Limited and Odhiambo Owiti & Company Advocate v CFC Stanbic Bank Limited, the court noted garnishee proceedings allow a third party holding funds on behalf of a judgment debtor to be called upon to honour the judgment creditor's claim. Since the Applicant's averments were uncontroverted and the Interested Party holds Kshs. 235,295,000 on account of the purchase price of the suit land, it could be held as a Garnishee.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • 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, as a mode of recovery of taxed costs.
  • Garnishee proceedings are proceedings where a third party holding funds or property on behalf of a judgment debtor can be called upon to honour the claim of a judgment creditor over those funds or property.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Certificate of Costs dated and issued on 22nd May, 2019 in the sum of Kshs. 10,534,628.00 be and is hereby converted into a Decree and Judgement of the Court.
  2. 2.The decretal sum be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 22nd May 2019 until payment in full.
  3. 3.The decretal sum plus interest and costs be a priority charge over all the monies held by the Interested Party for the benefit of the Respondent over Land Parcel Number Kajiado/Dalalekutuk/1320 in the event of Judgment being delivered in favour of the Respondent in Kajiado ELC No. 197 of 2017 Samuel Teeele Akute Vs. Kenneth Kamau Ngigi and Others.
  4. 4.Costs of the Application awarded to the Applicant.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates ActSection 51(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 22 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 23 Rules 1 & 2
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B & 3A
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 7

Cases cited (4)

  • Musyoka & Wambua Advocates Vs Rustam Hira Advocate
    (2006) eKLR
  • Otieno Yogo & Company Advocates v Kisumu Water and Sewerage Co. Limited
    [2018] eKLR
  • Orion East Africa V Mugama Farmers Cooperative Union Limited & Another
    (2015) eKLR
  • Odhiambo Owiti & Company Advocate V CFC Stanbic Bank Limited
    (2015) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act; Order 22 Rule 1 and Order 23 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Musyoka Murambi & Associates v Kenneth J. Kamau Ngigi;Coulson Harney Llp (Interested Party) [2020] KEELC 2670 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion dated 17th September, 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2670/eng@2020-05-12

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.