[2025] KEHC 8089 (KLR)
The court held that although the applicant sought judgment for taxed and certified costs, he failed to annex any evidence to prove that the bill of costs was taxed or that a certificate of taxation was issued. The absence of these crucial documents meant the court could not grant the orders sought. The statutory...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 8089 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Benard O Akang’o Advocate; Respondent: Trident Insurance Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Naivasha
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Case E104 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- GL Nzioka
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Certificate of Taxation, Execution of Judgment
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Benard O Akang’o Advocate
Applicant
Trident Insurance Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered for the applicant against the respondent for taxed and certified costs as per the certificate of taxation.
- 2 Whether the absence of the certificate of taxation or evidence of taxation precludes the granting of the orders sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that although the applicant sought judgment for taxed and certified costs, he failed to annex any evidence to prove that the bill of costs was taxed or that a certificate of taxation was issued. The absence of these crucial documents meant the court could not grant the orders sought. The statutory requirement is that the certificate of taxation must be produced to support such an application. Without it, the court cannot be satisfied that the amount claimed is due and properly certified. Therefore, the application was declined and costs were ordered to be in the cause.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is declined for want of evidence of taxation and certificate of taxation.
- Costs be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Benard O Akang’o Advocate v Trident Insurance Company Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Case E104 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 8089 (KLR) (9 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 8089 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Naivasha
Miscellaneous Civil Case E104 of 2024
GL Nzioka, J
June 9, 2025
Between
Benard O Akang’o Advocate
Applicant
and
Trident Insurance Company Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. By a notice of motion dated 13th December 2024 brought under the provisions of section 1A,1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act Chapter 16 Laws of Kenya, Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2009 and Order 50 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant is seeking for the following ordersa.That judgment be entered for the Applicant against the Respondent for Kshs 286,103/= being taxed and certified costs as per the Certificate of taxation issued on 4th December 2024 plus interest thereon as from 16th September, 2024 when the Bill of Costs was served upon the Respondentb.That the Applicant be at liberty to execute against the Respondentc.That the costs of this application be borne by the Respondent
2. The application is based on the ground thereto and the affidavit of Benard O. Akang’o an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya who is seized of this matter.
3. He avers that: -a.That the Respondent procured the Applicant’s firm to render legal services in Naivasha CMCC 444 of 2019. b.That the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs was taxed and certified at Kshs 286,103/= after the finalization of the matter.c.That there is no alteration to the certification of taxation neither was it disputed.d.That it is therefore fair and just that the orders sought herein be granted
4. The application was considered by the court on 21st January 2025 and ordered it to be served for directions inter parties. It was stood over to 13th February 2025 for further orders.
5. By an affidavit of service dated 23rd January 2025 the court was notified that the respondent had been served for appearance on 13th February 2025.
6. However, when the matter was heard on 13th February 2025 the respondent was not in court. Consequently, it was fixed for judgment on 7th April 2025, but for reasons on record, it was adjourned to 27th May 2025 and then to 4th June 2025. In the absence of a response, the application is basically unopposed.
7. In considering the same I note that the provisions of section 51(2) of the Advocates Act states: -“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.”
8. In the instant matter I note that, the applicant has not annexed to the affidavit in support of the application any evidence to prove that there was any bill of costs taxed and that a decision was rendered thereon. Furthermore, the certificate of taxation referred to has not been availed. Therefore, the court cannot allow the application as prayed. The costs be in the cause.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2025GRACE L. NZIOKAJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Akang’o for the applicantCourt assistant- Hannah