https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5091

**** **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF NAIROBI** **ELC MISC. APPLICATION NO. E021 OF 2025** **IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES ACT** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF THE TAXATION OF COSTS** **CHAUDHRI & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES ……………………..… APPLICANT** **-VERSUS-** **PREMIER HOMES AND PROPERTIES LIMITED ……………… RESPONDENT** **JUDGEMENT** 1. By a Notice of Motion dated 8th May 2026, brought under Order 51, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 51(2) of the Advocates Act, and Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014, the Applicant seeks the following orders: * 1. ***That judgment be entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kenya Shillings Two Million Five Hundred and One Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Three (Kshs 2,501,433.80), being certified costs due to the Applicant as against the Respondent.*** * + 1. ***That the Applicant be awarded interest compounded at the rate of 14% per annum from 17th March 2025 until payment in full.*** 2. ***That the costs of this Application be awarded to the Applicant.*** 3. ***Any other relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to grant in the circumstances*** 1. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mohammad Munir Chaudhri, sworn on even date. **THE APPLICANT’S CASE** 1. The Applicant averred that sometime in 2014, he received instructions to act for the Respondent in the sale and purchase of property L.R No. 13543/147, Nanyuki, between Machamuka Farmers Company Limited as the vendor and Premier Homes and Properties Limited as the purchaser. He averred that he filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 7th February 2025 seeking Kshs 2,501,433.80/= as legal fees for professional services rendered to the Respondent, which was taxed and allowed in that amount by a ruling delivered on 10th June 2025. 2. He further averred that the Respondent has neglected and/or failed to settle the taxed costs despite demand and notice. He contends that the Respondent neither filed a letter objecting to any item on the Bill of Costs nor lodged a Reference within the statutory fourteen days to challenge the taxing master's decision. He averred that the Bill of Costs was served on 17th February 2025 and that interest at the rate of 14% per annum was accordingly payable from 17th March 2025. 3. The Applicant contended that he would be unable to enforce the Certificate of Taxation dated 20th January 2026 without the grant of the orders sought. In conclusion, he urged the Court to enter judgment in accordance with the Certificate of Taxation, together with interest thereon. 1. Though duly served, the Respondent did not file any response to the application. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 1. Having considered the application, the only issue for determination is whether judgment should be entered in accordance with the Certificate of Taxation. 2. **Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act** provides as follows: ***“The certificate of the taxing officer by whom any bill has been taxed shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the Court, be final as to the amount of the 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.”*** 1. In the case of **Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N.K. Brothers Limited [2014] eKLR,** the Court held that: ***“The law is very clear that once a taxing master has taxed the costs, issued a Certificate of costs, and there is no reference against his ruling, or there has been a ruling and a determination made and not set aside and/or altered, no other action would be required from the court save to enter judgment. An applicant is not required to file suit for the recovery of costs.”*** 1. Based on the material before this Court, the Applicant has established an advocate-client relationship with the Respondent. The advocate-client bill of costs was taxed on 10th June 2025 at Kshs 2,501,433.80/-. A certificate of taxation was subsequently issued on 20th. January 2026. There is no evidence that the Certificate of Taxation has been set aside, altered, or challenged by way of reference. In the absence of such a challenge, the Certificate is conclusive as to the quantum of costs due. Based on the foregoing, I find no reason to deny the Applicant the judgment sought. 2. Regarding interest, I have considered the provisions outlined in **Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order**, which state as follows: ***“An Advocate may charge interest at 14% per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, providing such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full.”*** 1. In **Kerongo & Company Advocates vs Africa Assurance Merchant Co. Ltd (2019) eKLR,** the Court held that: ***“An Advocate who does not provide proof that he had raised the issue of interest before the amount in the Bill of Costs has been paid or tendered in full will not be paid the interest chargeable under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration.*** 1. The Advocates have not demonstrated that they raised the issue of interest, and therefore, they are not entitled to a 14% annual interest rate. 2. The upshot of the foregoing is that the application dated 8th May 2026 is merited and is hereby allowed as follows: 1. ***Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kenya Shillings Two Million Five Hundred and One Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Three (Kshs 2,501,433.80/-).*** 2. ***The Applicant is awarded the costs of the application.*** **RULING SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 31st DAY OF JULY 2026.** **…………………………** **HON. T. MURIGI** **JUDGE** **IN THE PRESENCE OF:** Bruno Derrick for the applicant Vena-Court Assistant