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

Amuga and Company Advocates v Kisumu Concrete Products Limited [2021] KEHC 4144 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 4144 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
4144
Citation
[2021] KEHC 4144 (KLR)
Decided
1 February 2021
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil ApplicationPostureRespondent seeks to set aside the taxation of the advocate's bill of costs, while the applicant seeks entry of judgment under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.CoramBotha, Epstein, McEwan, Moir, Rajah, Trollip
Holding

The court held that the Taxing Master did not err in law and fact, and the advocate's bill of costs was properly taxed.

Facts

The client instructed the advocate to represent it in a civil case, which was compromised by consent on June 16, 2020. The advocate filed a bill of costs, which was taxed and allowed in the sum of Ksh. 4,549,046.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Master erred in law and fact in holding that there existed a retainer agreement between the client and the advocate.
  2. Whether the Taxing Master erred in law and fact in determining the value of the subject matter, finding that the advocate had instructions to defend the counter-claim, and awarding instruction fees for the counter-claim.

Reasoning

The court interpreted the consent order to mean that the advocate's fees were to be paid by Cementers Limited, thus the advocate could not lawfully file the bill of costs against the client.

Outcome

The first application is dismissed.

Orders

  • The first application is dismissed.
  • The second application is granted, and entry of judgment is made under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.

Remedies

  • Entry of judgment in terms of the Certificate of Taxation.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Advocates Act
Cases cited (3)
  • Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro AG
  • Eke v Parsons
  • Athwal v. Black Top Cabs Ltd
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