https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9485

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9485

The application failed because Prayer 1 omitted material particulars essential to an application for judgment on taxed advocate-client costs: it did not state that the sum was as per a certificate of taxation, nor identify the date of the certificate or the taxing officer. Those omissions were held to go to the root...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 9485 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: ANDREW B. KHAKULA T/A J.S KHAKULA & CO. ADVOCATES; Respondent: TRIDENTINSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E009 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application; Advocate Client Costs Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed with leave to file a fresh compliant application.
Judges
["Sifuna Nixon"]
Legal Topics
Advocate Client Costs, Certificate of Taxation, Judgment on Taxed Costs, Pleading Defects, Interest on Taxed Costs
Source Language
en
Advocacy and Professional Fees Civil Procedure Advocate Client Costs Certificate of Taxation Judgment on Taxed Costs Pleading Defects Interest on Taxed Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ANDREW B. KHAKULA T/A J.S KHAKULA & CO. ADVOCATES

Applicant

TRIDENTINSURANCE COMPANY LTD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application; Advocate Client Costs Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs

  1. 1 Whether the advocate’s application sufficiently pleaded entitlement to judgment on taxed advocate-client costs under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
  2. 2 Whether failure to specify that the sum claimed was as per a certificate of taxation, including the date and taxing officer, was a fatal omission.
  3. 3 Whether interest could be granted on the taxed costs as prayed.

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because Prayer 1 omitted material particulars essential to an application for judgment on taxed advocate-client costs: it did not state that the sum was as per a certificate of taxation, nor identify the date of the certificate or the taxing officer. Those omissions were held to go to the root of the application, making it incompetent and liable to dismissal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with leave to file a fresh compliant application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Applicant granted leave to file a fresh application that is compliant.