https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4595

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MOMBASA** **ELC NO. E92 OF 2022 (O.S.)** **SALIM ALI & 24 OTHERS** **PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS** **=VERSUS=** **1. AHMED ALI SAID** **2. SALWA ALI SAID** **DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS** **JUDGMENT** 1. When costs have been awarded, taxed, and certified, and no reference has been filed to disturb them, the taxing officer’s certificate ripens into a decree by force of statute — and the Court’s task is not to reopen what has already been settled, but to give the certificate the coat of judgment which the law has cut for it. 2. Before me is a Notice of Motion dated **31st March 2026** brought under **Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010** and **Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21**. By that Motion the Defendants/Applicants — **Ahmed Ali Said** and **Salwa Ali Said** — seek the following orders: *a. THAT this Honourable Court do deem the Certificate of Costs dated 10th July 2025 for the sum of Kshs. 327,215/= only as the Judgement and Decree of this Honourable Court;* *b. THAT interest at the rate of 14% per annum be granted to accrue from the date of issue of the Certificate of Costs until payment in full;* *c. THAT the costs of this application be provided for.* 3. The application is grounded on the **supporting affidavit of Ahmed Ali Said and Salwa Ali Said** sworn on **31st March 2026**, together with the annexures thereto. In short, the record discloses the following procedural history: the substantive suit herein was *struck out with costs* to the Defendants/Applicants by order of this Court on **14th December 2023**; the Applicants thereafter filed a Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 23rd October 2024; the Plaintiffs/Respondents filed their submissions in opposition to the said Bill on 5th June 2025; on **9th July 2025** the Deputy Registrar taxed and allowed the Bill in the sum of **Kshs. 327,215.00**; and on **10th July 2025** a Certificate of Costs was duly issued under the seal of the Court. The Certificate was served upon the Plaintiffs/Respondents on **11th July 2025**, as evidenced by the Affidavit of Service on record. Since then, the Plaintiffs/Respondents have neither filed a Reference to review the taxation, nor moved to set aside or alter the Certificate, nor paid the taxed sum. 4. Having considered the application, the supporting affidavit and the record, the twin issues for determination are: *(i) whether this Court should adopt the Certificate of Costs dated 10th July 2025 as the judgment and decree of the Court; and* *(ii) if so, at what rate and from what date interest should run on the taxed sum until payment in full.* 5. The statutory foundations are three, and they interlock. **First**, **Order 21 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010** provides that where costs have been taxed by the Court, the amount so taxed shall be stated in a *separate certificate signed by the taxing officer*, which certificate stands as part of the decree. **Second**, **Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21** enshrines the principle that *costs follow the event* unless, for good reason, the Court directs otherwise. **Third**, **Section 27(2)** of the same Act expressly empowers the Court to “*give interest on costs at any rate not exceeding fourteen per cent per annum, and such interest shall be added to the costs and shall be recoverable as such*.” 6. The jurisprudence surrounding the enforcement of a certificate of costs — whether under **Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Cap. 16** (in advocate-client taxations) or under **Order 21 Rule 9** (in party and party taxations) — has crystallised, over the years, into a **trilogy of conditions** for the entry of judgment on a taxed bill: *(i) that a bill of costs has been duly taxed and a certificate of costs issued;* *(ii) that the certificate has neither been set aside nor altered by the Court, and no Reference is pending against the taxation; and* *(iii) that there is no dispute as to the underlying order for costs from which the taxation flows.* 7. Once the **trilogy of conditions** is satisfied, the certificate is final as to quantum and the Court is empowered to adopt it as its judgment and decree, without demanding of the successful party the further labour of a fresh suit. That policy of finality — restated by the Supreme Court in ***Kenya Airports Authority v. Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates, SC Petition No. E011 of 2023***, and traced through a long line of decisions from ***Ahmednasir Abdikadir & Co. Advocates v. National Bank of Kenya Ltd [2005] eKLR*** to ***Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v. N K Brothers Ltd*** and ***Machira & Co. Advocates v. Arthur K. Magugu & Another [2015] KEHC 8233 (KLR)*** — is not a technicality; it is a principled commitment to certainty, to economy of litigation, and to sparing the parties and the Court the burden of re-agitating figures that a taxing officer, in the calm of chambers, has already carefully reckoned. 8. Turning to the record before me, the trilogy is comfortably satisfied. **One**, the Party and Party Bill of Costs of **23rd October 2024** was taxed by the Deputy Registrar on **9th July 2025** in the sum of **Kshs. 327,215.00**, and a Certificate of Costs issued on **10th July 2025** (annexure “AAS 1”). **Two**, more than a year has passed since service of that Certificate upon the Plaintiffs/Respondents on **11th July 2025** (annexure “AAS 2”), and yet *no Reference has been filed*, no application to set aside or alter the taxation has been made, and no response to the present Motion appears on the court tracking system. **Three**, the underlying order for costs is undisturbed — it flows directly from this Court’s order of 14th December 2023 striking out the suit *with costs* to the present Applicants. There is, in short, no live controversy left to try. What remains is a matter of settled arithmetic and a duty of enforcement. 9. It has been said, and it bears repeating, that a court of justice does not exist to give the successful party his victory in name only. A costs order that cannot be reduced to a decree is a hollow order; a certificate of taxation that cannot be enforced is a paper promise. The purpose of **Order 21 Rule 9** is precisely to close that gap — to marry the substantive right to costs with the procedural machinery of execution — so that the vindication of a party’s right is not stranded at the door of the taxing officer’s chambers but is carried through to the fund from which it must, at last, be paid. 10. The silence of the Plaintiffs/Respondents in the face of this application is a silence they have chosen. They were served with the Certificate on **11th July 2025** and, on the deponents’ uncontroverted account, have taken no step to challenge it. Under **Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order** (applied here by close analogy) and the general practice of this Court, the window to move by Reference is fourteen days from service; that window closed long ago. The Court cannot manufacture opposition where none has been mounted, and equity, though patient, does not indefinitely await the awakening of the negligent litigant. *Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt*. 11. That leaves the question of **interest**. The Applicants pray for interest at **14% per annum from the date of issue of the Certificate of Costs** (10th July 2025) until payment in full. The prayer is squarely anchored on **Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act**, which, in unambiguous terms, empowers this Court to “*give interest on costs at any rate not exceeding fourteen per cent per annum*.” The ceiling is statutory; the rate within that ceiling is discretionary, and the discretion is to be exercised judicially, guided by the conduct of the parties, the nature of the delay, and the demands of justice. Here, the taxed sum is modest (**Kshs. 327,215/=),** the Respondents have made no effort to pay, and no explanation for the delay is on record. In the exercise of the discretion conferred by **Section 27(2),** I am satisfied that interest at the maximum statutory rate is warranted and proportionate. 12. As to the **commencement date** for that interest, I am persuaded that **10th July 2025** — the date of issue of the Certificate of Costs — is the just and principled starting point. It is on that date that the sum crystallised as a liquidated liability of the Plaintiffs/Respondents, and it is from that date that their failure to pay begins to attract the compensatory dimension of interest. To defer commencement to the date of this Ruling would, in effect, reward *inertia*; and I decline to do so. 13. On the **costs of this application**, the general principle under **Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act** is that costs follow the event, unless for good reason the Court directs otherwise. The Applicants have succeeded, the application is unopposed, and no exceptional circumstance has been shown to displace the general rule. The Applicants shall have the costs of this application. 14. In the result, and for the reasons foregoing, the Notice of Motion dated **31st March 2026** is **allowed** in the following terms: **ORDERS** **(a)** The Certificate of Costs dated 10th July 2025 for the sum of **Kshs. 327,215.00** be and is hereby **adopted as the Judgment and Decree of this Court**, and judgment is accordingly entered in favour of the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants against the Plaintiffs/Respondents in that sum. **(b)** The said sum shall attract **interest at the rate of 14% per annum**, pursuant to *Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21*, from **10th July 2025** (being the date of issue of the Certificate of Costs) until payment in full. **(c)** The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants shall have the **costs of this application**. ***Orders accordingly.*** **Judgment dated, signed at Mombasa and delivered virtually via Microsoft Teams on this 16th day of July, 2026.** .................................... **Hon. Lady Justice B. A. AKELLO, OGW** **JUDGE** *In the presence of:* Gillian – Court Assistant Shee Ali H/b for Hamza … Defendants N/A for the Plaintiffs