Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedMiscellaneous Application dated 4.4.2024 (number not stated in judgment; related references Misc. No. E016 of 2024 and Misc. No. E054 of 2023/2024)· [2024] KEELC 5048 (KLR)

Mwirigi Kaburu & Co Advocates v County Government of Meru (Miscellaneous Application E054 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5048 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (Environment and Land Court, Meru)
26 June 2024
CNC K Nzili
552 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Meru court allowed an advocate to convert a taxed Kshs.82 million fee bill into an enforceable judgment because the client never disputed hiring the firm.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an advocate-client costs application under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act seeking entry of judgment for Kshs.82,176,731/= based on a certificate of taxation dated 4.4.2024. The applicant relied on authority that judgment may be entered where the certificate has not been set aside and the client does not dispute the retainer. The respondent opposed, arguing a reference against the taxing decision was pending as Misc. HC E054 of 2023. The court (C K Nzili, J) noted that a reference had already been dismissed in Misc. No. E016 of 2024 for lack of merits, confirming the certificate as final as to costs. The respondent admitted the retainer; the reference only challenged the quantum as colossal or excessive, and the taxing master's decision was conclusive, requiring no further reasons. Although leave to extend time for filing the reference had not been sought, the court found no prejudice since the certificate was also issued on 4.4.2024. Applying the test in Gichuki Kingara v Mugoya Constructions, the court allowed the application, entered judgment for the full certified sum with interest running from the date of entry of judgment, granted costs of the application, and permitted the applicant to execute the decree in compliance with the law. Judgment was delivered at Meru on 26 June 2024 via Microsoft Teams/open court.

Key legal issues

#
01

Entry of judgment on a certificate of taxation under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act

Holding

The court entered judgment for Kshs.82,176,731/= because the certificate had not been set aside, the reference against it had been dismissed, and the retainer was admitted

Reasoning

The court applied the test in Gichuki Kingara v Mugoya Constructions: there was a certificate of taxation not set aside, attested or reviewed; the respondent admitted the retainer; the reference attacked only the quantum as colossal or excessive, not the retainer; and the reference's dismissal confirmed the certificate as final as to costs, with no prejudice occasioned by the filing timeline.

p. 2
02

Effect of a dismissed reference on the finality of the certificate of costs

Holding

The dismissal of the reference in Misc. No. E016 of 2024 confirmed the certificate dated 4.4.2024 as final as to costs

Reasoning

The court noted that it had dismissed the reference against the taxing master's decision for lack of merits, which confirmed the certificate as final. The respondent's complaints went only to the quantum (figures in items 1 and 2 of the bill) being excessive, and the taxing master's decision was conclusive, so there was no need to seek further reasons.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the court may enter judgment on a certificate of costs that has not been set aside, where no reference is pending or it has become final, and the retainer is not disputed under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
  • A judgment on a certificate of taxation may be entered provided the client is not disputing the fact of the retainer in the first instance

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 4.4.2024 is allowed with costs
  2. 2.Judgment entered against the respondent in the sum of Kshs.82,176,731/= as per the certificate of costs
  3. 3.Interest to run from the date of entry of judgment
  4. 4.The applicant is at liberty to execute the decree in compliance with the law

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates ActSection 51(2)
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11

Cases cited (8)

  • Owino Okeyo & Company Advocates v Fuelex Kenya Ltd
    [2005] eKLR
  • Guchuki Kingara & Co. Advocates v Mugoya Constructions & Engineering Ltd
    [2015] eKLR
  • Macharia Njeru advocate v CCK HCCC No. 1029 of 2002
    as cited in Kagwimi Kagethe & Co. Advocates v Penelope Combos and another [2014] eKLR
  • Kagwimi Kagethe & Co. Advocates v Penelope Combos and another
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kinjuga v Kangaru
    Misc. App No. E001 of 2022 (2023 KEELC 246 (KLR))
  • KCB Bank Ltd v Yeswa Antonny Joseph
    [2022] eKLR
  • Kipkorir Titoo & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Funds Board
    [2005] eKLR
  • Ahmednassir Abdikadir & Co. Advocates, Twiga Motors Ltd v Hon. Dalmas Otieno Onyango
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mwirigi Kaburu & Co Advocates v County Government of Meru (Miscellaneous Application E054 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5048 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Miscellaneous Application dated 4.4.2024 (number not stated in judgment; related references Misc. No. E016 of 2024 and Misc. No. E054 of 2023/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5048/eng@2024-06-26

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