SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v St Bakhita Daycare & Kindergarten Limited & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E034 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 15331 (KLR) (13 December 2022) (Ruling)

[2022] KEELC 15331 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
15331
Citation
[2022] KEELC 15331 (KLR)
Decided
13 December 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureAppeal from an original trialCoramM.D. MWANGI
Holding

The court enters judgment in favor of the advocate for the sum of Kshs 849,123.10 with interest at 14% per annum from November 19, 2021 until payment in full. The clients' application is struck out.

Facts

The advocate filed an application for entry of judgment for costs taxed at Kshs 849,123.10 plus interest. The clients opposed the application, filing a reference application challenging the taxation of the bill of costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to determine the clients' application
  2. Whether the advocate's bill of costs includes a charge for interest

Reasoning

The court found that the advocate's bill of costs did not include a charge for interest, and thus the advocate's application for interest was not supported. The court exercised its discretion under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act to award interest from the date of taxation.

Outcome

Judgment in favor of the advocate for the sum of Kshs 849,123.10 with interest and costs.

Orders

  • Judgment in favor of the advocate for the sum of Kshs 849,123.10 with interest and costs
  • Striking out the clients' application

Remedies

  • Interest at 14% per annum from November 19, 2021 until payment in full
  • Costs of both applications

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Advocates Act
Cases cited (1)
  • PI Samba and Company Advocates vs Buzeki Enterprises Limited
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case