Muri Mwaniki& Wamiti Advocates v Kenya Orient Insurance Limited

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU (CORAM:CHERERE-J) MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO 49 OF 2015 BETWEEN MURI MWANIKI& WAMITI ADVOCATES…...................APPLICANT/ADVOCATE AND KENYA ORIENT INSURANCE LIMITED…………………RESPONDENT/CLIENT RULING 1. By a Notice of Motion dated 15 th April, 2019, brought under the provisions of Section 51 (2) of the Advocates act, Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Applicant/Advocate seeks the following orders: 1) Judgment be entered for the sum of Kshs. one hundred and thirty-four thousand two hundred and fifty-six and sixty cents (Kshs. 134,256.60) in costs certified by the Deputy Registrar on 20th March, 2019 2) The Kshs. 134,256.60 be paid with interest at 14% per annum from 4 th June, 2015 being one month from the date of the delivery of the bill of costs to the Respondent pursuant to Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order 3) That costs of this application be awarded to the Applicant/Advocate 2. The Application is premised on the grounds among others that the Respondent/Client Deputy Registrar taxed the Advocates ‘costs at Kshs. 134,256.60 which sum remains unpaid. 3. The Application is supported by an affidavit sworn on 15 th April, 2019 by MARTIN G. MWANIKI. He avers that the Applicant/Advocate acted for the Respondent/Client in KISUMU CMCC 984 OF 2001 CHANNAN AGRICULTURAL CONTRACTORS V KENYA ORIENT INSURANCE, that the Advocates’ bill of costs was taxed at Kshs. 134,256.60 which sum remains unpaid. Annexed to the affidavit is the bill of costs received by the Respondent/Client on 05 th May, 2015 and Certificate of Taxation dated 20 th March, 2019 marked MGM1, and 2 respectively. 4. In response to the application, the Respondent/Client through its advocate filed submissions dated 15 th June, 2019 in which it contends that the Applicant/Advocate is not entitled to interest at 14% for the reason that it did not claim it before filing the bill of costs. Reliance was placed on Machira & Co. Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu & another [2019] eKLR and Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v Kenindia Assurance Company Limited [2016] eKLR. 5. Regarding interest, I have considered the provisions of Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order which provides:- “An advocate may charge interest at 14% per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, providing such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full.” (emphasis added). 6. Contrary to the finding in Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v Kenindia Assurance Company Limited (supra) that the bill denoted to under the provisions of Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order does not refer to the bill of costs, the court of Appeal in Machira v Magugu (supra) specifically stated that the bill thereof is the bill of costs. Having so found, I find that interest at 14% is payable as long the amount of the bill has not been paid or tendered in full.

page 1 of 2