1. I have considered the grounds set out in the main body of the Notice of Motion Application dated 14 December 2023 together with further grounds in the supporting affidavit sworn on even date; and grounds set out in the replying affidavit sworn on 28th March 2024 in opposition to the same; the applicable law; and the submissions of the parties.
2. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act provides for entry of judgment on taxed costs as follows;
“The certificate of a taxing officer by whom it has been taxed shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the court, be final as to the amount of costs covered thereby, and the court may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including in a case where the retainer is not disputed, an order that judgment be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.”
4. It is therefore clear that where costs have been taxed and certified and the retainer is not in dispute, the court has discretion to enter judgment for the advocate as against the client for the taxed amount, as the certificate of costs bears finality in respect to the costs owed by the client to the advocate, unless the same is set aside.
5. Having carefully considered the affidavits and respective submissions, it is clear to me that the Certificate of Costs that was issued by the Taxing Officer had not been set aside and/or altered.
6. Looking at the application I see that the applicant has annexed the following documents in support of his application:
a) Bill of costs dated 20th December, 2022 and served on the respondent on 25th April, 2023
b) Certificate of taxation dated 11th October, 2023
c) Evidence of service of the Certificate of Taxation together with the present application.
7. Further to the above it is not in dispute that the respondent participated in the taxation proceedings, which took place over one year ago.
8. I take note of the respondent’s submission that it was not served with an original set of the certificate of taxation, but rather with only a copy. Counsel was however unable to say whether or not an original copy is required by law for the purpose of the present application. He did however clarify that he was not disputing the authenticity of the certificate of taxation.
9. Finally, the respondent submitted that it intended to file a reference in opposition to the decision of the taxing master. I cannot however help but notice that the time for filing a reference has since lapsed; and to date no such application has been filed seeking to enlarge time. In particular, the draft Chamber Summons attached to the replying affidavit does not contain any such prayer for enlargement of time.
10. Based on the above, I am of the view that the explanation by counsel for the delay occasioned is not satisfactory.
11. Based on the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that the Notice of Motion application dated 14.12. 23. is with merit.
12. The orders of the court are as follows:
a. Prayers 1 and 2 are granted.
b. Costs of this application shall be awarded to the Advocate.