Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (Chamber Summons Application dated 16th July 2021)· [2021] KEELC 201 (KLR)

Elijah Njuguna Njoki v Peter Muriu Njuguna & 4 others [2021] KEELC 201 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
9 December 2021
2,816 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed that once a bill of costs is taxed and certified, it cannot be taxed again, and late objections to taxation will fail without strict compliance.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, by Chamber Summons dated 16th July 2021 under the Advocates Remuneration Order, Section 11 of the Advocates Act, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159 of the Constitution, sought to set aside taxation rulings and certificates of costs relating to bills of costs dated 13th May 2019 and 28th May 2020, and a stay of execution of certificates of costs of 5th February 2021 (Kshs. 189,350.00) and 24th June 2021 (Kshs. 271,215.00). He contended that the bill of 13th May 2019 was taxed twice, producing two certificates, and that the bill of 28th May 2020 was never served on him. The Respondents opposed, arguing the reference was filed out of the 14-day window prescribed by Rule 11. Gacheru J framed three issues. On the first, the court found that after the first certificate of 5th February 2021 was issued, the taxing court became functus officio; the second certificate of 29th June 2021 was issued irregularly over an already taxed bill and was expunged, while the first certificate was adopted as judgment of the court. On the second, the court held that the Rule 11 procedure (notice within 14 days, then reference within 14 days of reasons) is mandatory; the applicant filed a year late with no plausible explanation, and following Salat the court declined to bend procedural rules. The reference on the bill dated 28th May 2020 was dismissed. On costs, both parties partially succeeded, and the court made no orders as to costs, each party bearing their own costs. Judgment dated and delivered virtually at Murang'a on 9th December 2021.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ruling of 24th June 2021 and the second Certificate of Costs should be set aside

Holding

The second Certificate of Costs dated 29th June 2021 was issued irregularly because the bill of costs dated 13th May 2019 had already been taxed and a certificate issued on 5th February 2021; the court became functus officio. The first certificate is valid and adopted as judgment; the second is expunged.

Reasoning

The court found two certificates of costs over the same bill. Having taxed the bill and issued the first certificate, the taxing court was functus officio. The first certificate had not been set aside, varied or altered, and the applicant had partly paid it, so could not resile from it. A purported re-taxation of an already taxed bill was therefore a nullity, warranting expungement of the second certificate.

p. 3
02

Whether the reference against the bill of costs dated 28th May 2020 is merited

Holding

Dismissed. The applicant did not follow the mandatory Rule 11 procedure of giving notice within 14 days and filing the reference within 14 days of receipt of reasons, and offered no plausible explanation for the delay.

Reasoning

Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order sets out a mandatory sequence: notice of objection within 14 days, taxing officer's reasons, then a chamber summons reference within 14 days. Although rules are handmaidens of justice, the court, following Salat, declined to aid a party with scant respect for timelines. No evidence of steps taken to obtain the ruling or comply was presented, and the reference was filed a year late.

p. 4
03

Who should bear the costs of the application

Holding

Both parties partially succeeded; each party to bear their own costs.

Reasoning

Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act confers discretion on costs, with costs following the event unless special circumstances exist. Because the applicant succeeded in expunging the second certificate but failed on the reference over the bill dated 28th May 2020, both sides partially succeeded, and the just order was that each bear their own costs.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Once a bill of costs has been taxed and a certificate of costs issued, the taxing court becomes functus officio and the certificate is final unless set aside, varied or altered
  • A second taxation and certificate of costs over an already taxed bill is irregular and invalid
  • Compliance with the procedure under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (notice within 14 days, reasons, then reference) is mandatory

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Certificate of Costs dated 5th February 2021 for Kshs. 189,350.00 is declared valid and adopted as a judgment of the Court
  2. 2.The Certificate of Costs dated 29th June 2021 for Kshs. 271,215.00 is declared invalid and expunged from the Court record
  3. 3.The reference in respect of the ruling on the bill of costs dated 28th May 2020 is dismissed
  4. 4.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11
  • Advocates ActSection 11, Cap 16
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A; Section 27
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159; Article 159(2)(d)

Cases cited (8)

  • Premchand Raichand Limited & Another vs Quarry Services of East Africa Limited and Another
    [1972] E.A 162
  • First American Bank of Kenya vs Shah and Others
    (2002) EA 64; [2002] E.A.L.R 64 at 69
  • Joreth Ltd vs Kigano and Associates
    (2002) 1 EA 92
  • County Government of Tana River vs Miller & Co Advocates
    2021 eKLR
  • Mwangi and Co Advocates vs Machakos County
    2020 eKLR
  • Microsoft Corporation v Mitsumi Computer Garage Ltd & another
    Nairobi Civil App. No. 810 of 2001, [2001] eKLR
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 6 others
    Nairobi CoA Application No. 228 of 2013, [2013] eKLR
  • Machira & Co. Advocates vs Arthur K. Magugu & another
    Nairobi CoA Appeal No. 199 of 2002, [2012] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Advocates Remuneration Order; Section 11 of the Advocates Act, Cap 16; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Elijah Njuguna Njoki v Peter Muriu Njuguna & 4 others [2021] KEELC 201 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment (Chamber Summons Application dated 16th July 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/201/eng@2021-12-09

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