Henry Athimbu Kurauka Advocate v Celestine Mwenda Munene [2019] KEELRC 912 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a client's attempt to stop attachment of his goods over unpaid advocate's fees, ruling the application was a repeat abuse of process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application was an abuse of the court process
It was an abuse of process and vexatious as it sought the same orders already dismissed in Ruling No. 2 of 1 February 2019
The Court had on 1 February 2019 dismissed an application seeking identical orders, holding it was an abuse of the court process. Bringing a fresh application seeking the same relief, without more, amounted to a repeat abuse. The Court also independently verified the record showing service and participation in the taxation.
Whether the Respondent had an opportunity to defend the Bill of Costs
He did; the Taxing Officer made a definitive finding of service and that the Respondent filed submissions in opposition
On review of the record, the Taxing Officer on 27 February 2019 made a definitive finding of fact that the Respondent was served with the Bill of Costs and filed submissions opposing it. He therefore could not claim denial of a chance to defend the bill from which the decree under execution arose.
Whether the Ruling of 11 April 2019 in Misc. Application No. 174 of 2015 barred execution
It did not; that ruling related to a different matter with no legal nexus to this cause
The ruling relied upon arose from taxation of costs in Succession Cause No. 659 of 2013, not ELRC Cause No. 2365 of 2012. Apart from the fact that the Respondent had retained Kurauka & Co. Advocates, there was no nexus between the two actions, so the ruling offered no protection here.
Legal principles established
#- An advocate is entitled to costs in respect of each retainer or instructions from the client
- A party cannot be heard to deny an opportunity to defend a bill of costs where the Taxing Officer found service and filing of submissions
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's application dated 26 June 2019 dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Applicant assessed at Kshs 25,000/-
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Advocates Act Cap 16 of the Laws of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Henry Athimbu Kurauka Advocate v Celestine Mwenda Munene [2019] KEELRC 912 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Misc. Application No. 153 of 2017 (and ELRC Cause No. 2365 of 2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/912/eng@2019-09-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.