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

DALY & FIGGIS & CO. ADVOCATES v KARUTURU NETWORKS LTD & another [2009] KEHC 3387 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 3387 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
3387
Citation
[2009] KEHC 3387 (KLR)
Decided
22 July 2009
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureRespondents appeal the dismissal of their application to strike out the advocate-client bill of costs and seek to stay the taxation of the bill of costs pending the hearing of their appeal.CoramL. Kimaru
Holding

The respondents have no competent appeal pending before this court and the application seeking to stay the taxation of the advocate-client bill of costs is dismissed.

Facts

The applicant and respondents had an advocate-client relationship and filed a bill of costs in court. The respondents filed an application to strike out the bill of costs, which was dismissed by the taxing officer. The respondents then appealed the decision and filed an application to stay the taxation of the bill of costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents have lodged a competent appeal pending before this court.
  2. Whether the respondents have a right to stay the taxation of the advocate-client bill of costs pending the hearing of their appeal.

Reasoning

The court held that the respondents' appeal is not contemplated by the Advocates Remuneration Order and is therefore incompetent and a nullity in law.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the applicant.

Orders

  • Application for stay of taxation of advocate-client bill of costs dismissed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Advocates Act
Cases cited (3)
  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order
  • Advocates Remuneration Order
  • Civil Procedure Rules
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