REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL MISC. APPL. NO. 317 OF 2015 MEREKA & CO. ADVOCATES...............APPLICANT/ADVOCATE -V E R S U S – INVESCO ASSURANCE CO. LTD.............CLIENT/RESPONDENT RULING 1) Mereka & Co. Advocates, the applicant/advocate herein, filed the advocate-client Bill of costs dated 15.7.2015 against Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd, the client respondent herein. The Bill of costs was heard and dismissed by Hon. F. Rashid, learned Taxing Officer, on the basis that the same was time-barred. The learned Taxing Officer stated that the Bill of Costs was filed 8 years after the cause of action arose. 2) Being aggrieved by the dismissal order, the advocate/applicant preferred this reference. The reference was served but the same elicited no response. When the reference came up for hearing, the client/respondent failed to turn up therefore the same proceeded for hearing exparte. Mr. Mathenge, learned advocate for the advocate/ applicant argued that the Taxing Officer erred when she held that the Bill of Costs was time barred yet there were evidence to show that the application was not time-barred. 3) I have on my part considered the material placed before this court. The correspondences annexed to the Bill of Costs indicate that the client/respondent has been in constant communication with the advocate from the date the advocate ceased acting for the client/respondent. It would appear from the correspondences that the client kept on making promises to the advocate to settle his fees but failed to fulfil those promises. The promises induced the advocate/applicant, to delay from taking action to recover his fees until the time to file the bill lapsed. I agree with the advocate/applicant’s submissions that the client respondent should not be allowed to take advantage of limitation of time because the client kept on making false promises until time lapsed to file a Bill of Costs. This court holds the view that time begins to run from the date the client/respondent acknowledged being indebted to the advocate and agreeing not to contest the claim on the basis of limitation of time. Had the learned Taxing Officer taken time to go through the correspondences exchanged between the advocate and the client, she would have proceeded to reject the argument that the Bill of costs was time barred. 4) In the end, I find the chamber summons dated 14.12.2017 to be meritorious. It is allowed as follows: a) The Taxing Officer’s decision to dismiss the Bill of Costs delivered on 2/11/2017 is set aside. b) The aforesaid Bill of costs is reinstated and should be retaxed afresh by another Taxing Officer other than Hon. F. Rashid. c) Costs of the reference to await the outcome of the re-taxation. Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court this 25th day of May, 2018. J. K. SERGON JUDGE In the presence of: ..................................for the Applicant ..................................for the Respondent
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.