Chaudhri & Associates v Registered Trustees of Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (Miscellaneous Civil Application E204 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4833 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Ruling)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT NAIROBI** **MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. E204 OF 2022** **CHAUDHRI & ASSOCIATES - ADVOCATE** **-VS-** **THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF SHEIKH** **ZAYED BIN SULTAN AL – NAHYAN - CLIENT** **RULING 2** **(In respect of the Client’s application dated 9/2/2026 and Advocates’ application dated 29/5/2025)** 1. This ruling determines two applications arising from the taxation of an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 23/9/2022. By the direction of the Court, the two applications, one seeking to set aside the Taxing Master’s Ruling and the other seeking entry of judgment. **The Client’s application** 1. The first application by the Client is a Chamber Summon expressed to be brought pursuant to the provisions of Rule 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Order 22 Rule 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Client substantively seeks for orders that: - 2. The taxation of Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 37, 39, 40, 44.61, 62 and 63 be set aside and the items be re-assessed by another Taxing Officer. 3. In the alternative to above, the items be re-assessed by this Court. 4. Costs of this Application and the taxation before the Taxing Officer be paid by the Advocate. 5. Any other relief deemed just and fair to grant. 6. The application is premised on the grounds on the face of it and the Supporting Affidavit of Abubakar Hassan Dindia, the Applicant’s Director, sworn on 9/2/2026. The deponent avers that the Taxing Master erred in law by finding that the Bill of Costs dated 17/1/2025 was unchallenged. 7. The Applicant contends that the Taxing Master erred in law and fact in several respects: by holding that the Bill of Costs dated 17/1/2025 was unchallenged, by awarding Value Added Tax (VAT) without proof of payment by either the Client or the Advocate, by granting a 50% increment on the Bill on the ground that it was unopposed, by awarding the costs of taxation to the Advocate, and by allowing excessive fees that amounts to unjust enrichment. Further, that by arriving at a wrong conclusion, and specifically challenging the taxation of items numbered 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 37, 39, 40, 44, 61, 62, and 63. It is for that reason that the Applicant prays that this Court do review the evidence on record, set aside the taxation and reassess the impugned items. **The Advocate’s responses** 1. The Advocate filed grounds of opposition dated 9/3/2026 in contesting the application. The Advocate contends that the Client’s application is fundamentally flawed as it improperly invites the Court to conduct a fresh taxation and reassess matters that lie squarely within the discretionary province of the Taxing Master. The Advocate avers that the Respondent failed to identify any specific error of principle, misdirection, disregard of relevant factors, omission of material considerations, or manifest excessiveness that would justify judicial intervention in the taxation proceedings. As for the grievances raised concerning VAT, the 50% increment, costs of taxation and the alleged failure to evaluate evidence remain vague, generalized, and unsupported by requisite particulars, thereby falling short of the threshold for appellate interference. 2. The Advocate contends that the application is a continuation of the Client’s effort to divert the Court from the narrow issue earlier remitted by the Taxing Master, namely whether any valid remuneration agreement existed between the parties. The Advocate argues that the application contravenes settled principles enumerated in Joreth Limited v Kigano & Associates, First American Bank of Kenya v Shah, Premchand Raichand Limited v Quarry Services, and Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board, and accordingly ought to be dismissed with costs. 3. In his Replying Affidavit dated 9/3/2026, the Advocate, Mohamed Ferhan Chaudhri, deposes that the Client has not demonstrated any proper basis for the Court to set aside, re-assess or interfere with the Taxing Master’s exercise of discretion. Counsel asserts that the Client has not demonstrated that it filed the requisite Notice of Objection to taxation in compliance with Paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. That the filing of the Chamber Summons without filing a notice of objection renders the application incompetent. 4. In response to the assertion that the Taxing Master erred in treating the Bill of Costs as unopposed, Counsel avers that the Client had every opportunity to oppose the Bill but failed to do so and instead chose to frustrate the proceedings only for it to seek to set it aside. On the allegation that VAT was wrongly awarded, Counsel deposes that VAT is chargeable on legal service as provided by statute. Regarding the alleged error of 50% increment, the Advocate states that he was entitled to consider the nature, importance, complexity, value, responsibility involved, time expended and the conduct of the matter in assessing fair remuneration. As for costs of taxation, the Advocate states that costs follow the event unless the Court or Taxing Master orders otherwise. 5. It is further asserted that the Taxing Master considered the material placed before him and exercised his discretion judiciously. That the Client has failed to identify any misdirection, omission or manifestly excessive award to justify the Court’s interference. He argues that the Client has not shown the error in principle committed by the Taxing Master for the listed items to warrant a re-assessment. Counsel contends that the application is an abuse of the Court process, is procedurally defective and calculated to reopen issues that were either determined or ought to have been raised before the Taxing Master. As such, the Advocate prays that the application be dismissed with costs. **The Advocate’s application** 1. The second application is by the Advocate; which application is expressed to be under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, Sections 1A, 1B,3A and 63 (e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicant seeks the following primary orders: 2. That the Certificate of Costs dated 24/2/2026, issued in respect of the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 22/9/2025 and certifying the sum of Kenya Shillings Twenty-Two Million, Four Hundred Fifty-Two Thousand, Eight Hundred Forty- Six and Thirty-Two Cents (KSHS. 22, 452, 846.32), be and is hereby adopted as an order and/or judgment of this Honourable Court. 3. That Judgment be and is hereby entered for the Advocate against the Client in the sum of Kenya Shillings Twenty-Two Million, Four Hundred Fifty-Two Thousand, Eight Hundred Forty-Six and Thirty-Two Cents (Kshs. 22,452,846.32). 4. That the said sum do attract interest at Court rates from the date of issuance filing of the suit of costs, or such other date as this Honourable Court shall deem just, until payment in full. 5. That the Advocate/Applicant be at liberty to execute for recovery of the decretal sum, interest and costs upon extraction of the decree/order herein. 6. That the costs of this Application be borne by the Client/Respondent. 7. The application is grounded on the face of it and the Supporting Affidavit of Mohamed Ferhan Chaudhri, sworn on 29/5/2026. The Applicant avers that on 27/1/2026, the Taxing Master taxed the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 22/9/2025 and allowed it at a sum of Kshs. 22,452,846.32/=. That the Certificate of Costs dated 24/2/2026 issued thereof has not been set aside, varied, reviewed or altered by this Court or otherwise. It is averred that the Client has failed, refused or neglected to settle the said sum hence the instant application. 8. Despite service of the Advocate’s application and the various Court attendances by the Client’s Counsel, no response was filed to the Advocate’s application. The Advocate’s application is therefore unopposed. **The Court’s directions** 1. By consent of both parties, the Court directed on 2/6/2026 that the applications be canvassed by way of written submissions. Parties were directed to file their submissions within 30 days. The Advocate complied and filed his submissions dated 19/6/2026. On the other hand, the Client filed its submissions dated 7/7/2026 on 16/7/2026., the day the matter was slated for Ruling. Although, filed out of time and without leave of Court, the Court will never the less consider them in its decision. **The Client’s submissions** 1. In its submissions, the Client challenges the taxation of multiple items in the Bill of Costs, contending that the Taxing Officer erred in law and fact. Specifically, it is argued that Item 2, being part of instruction fees, ought to be disallowed, while Item 3 was incorrectly taxed at Kshs. 53,100/- for drawing an application, whereas the correct fee based on 108 folios should be Kshs. 5,400/-. Similarly, Item 7, charged at Kshs. 8,400/- for service via email, lacks supporting invoices and should be re-taxed at Kshs. 1,400/-. Furthermore, the hearing fee of Kshs. 10,650/- is excessive and unsupported, as the Remuneration Order caps such fees at a maximum of Kshs. 1,900/- for hearings not exceeding one hour. The Applicant also contends that charges for perusing documents under various items are inflated and lack justification, as none of the documents exceeded 150 folios, and the applicable perusal fee is Kshs. 50/- per folio. 2. Additionally, the Client submits that the Taxing Officer erred in allowing Value Added Tax (VAT) at 16% on the taxed amount, as there was no proof that the Client had actually paid VAT, rendering such a charge unrecoverable. The Client asserts that the Bill of Costs was excessively and unreasonably taxed, amounting to unjust enrichment, and that the Advocate failed to provide receipts, invoices, or proof of payment for several items. Consequently, the Client prays that the Court sets aside the taxation and either re-taxes the items or refers them to another Taxing Officer for reassessment. **The Advocate’s submissions** 1. The Advocate identified three main issues for determination. The first issue is whether the Client’s Chamber Summons dated 9/2/2026 is competent under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The Advocate submits that the Client’s application is fatally premature and incompetent, as it fails to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. It is contended that the Client has not only omitted to file a timely Notice of Objection specifying the disputed items but has also neglected to invoke the Taxing Officer’s reasoned determination. The Advocate further argues that the Reference does not confine to legally identifiable items, nor has it sought enlargement of time under Paragraph 11(4) prior to approaching the Court. That this cumulative disregard of every successive step prescribed by law, being neither isolated nor excusable, renders the application incurably defective. Accordingly, the Court is urged to decline jurisdiction, dismiss or strike out the application as the Court’s jurisdiction was not properly invoked. 2. The second issue is whether the Client has demonstrated any error of principle warranting interference with the Taxing Master’s decision. Counsel contends that the Client’s reference challenging the Taxing Master’s award fails to meet the requisite threshold for judicial interference as established in Premchand Raichand Ltd -vs- Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd [1972] EA 162, First American Bank of Kenya Ltd -vs- Shah & 2 Others [ 2002] 1 EA 64 and affirmed in Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates –vs- Deposit Protection Fund Board [2005] Eklr That interference is warranted only upon demonstration of an error of principle, such as application of a wrong schedule, consideration of irrelevant matters, or a manifestly excessive or derisory award. The Advocate urges the Court to find that the Client’s assertions concerning VAT, a fifty per cent increment, costs of taxation and the alleged failure to evaluate evidence are generalized, unparticularised, and amount to no more than dissatisfaction, improperly inviting a re-taxation afresh. Counsel argues that VAT is correctly characterized as a statutory obligation under the Value Added Tax Act, 2013 and is not discretionary. While the increment falls within the Taxing Master’s broad discretion under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Counsel further asserts that the Client, who bore the burden of identifying specific items, the principle breached, the correct legal approach and prejudice suffered but the Client has failed to discharge the burden. Counsel argues that even if the application were procedurally competent, it would nevertheless fail on the merits for want of a demonstrable error of principle. 3. The third issue is whether the Advocate is entitled to Judgment on the Certificate of Costs under Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act. The Applicant submits that pursuant to section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, a certificate of costs issued following taxation is final as to quantum unless set aside or altered by the Court. That the proper course is to move the Court for entry of judgment thereon, not to institute a fresh suit. Relying on Lubulellah & Associates Advocates –vs- N K Brothers Limited [2014] eKLR and Machira & Co Advocates –vs- Arthur K. Magugu & Another [2015] eKLR, the Applicant contends that where no reference is pending or any reference has been determined and the certificate remains unaltered, the only remaining step is entry of judgment. Counsel argues that the Certificate of Costs issued herein is valid and unaltered, he thus urges the Court to adopt the certificates as judgments in the certified sums. He also prays that he be granted interest at 14% per annum under paragraph 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order as well as costs. **Analysis and determination** 1. Having carefully considered the rival applications, the supporting and opposing affidavits, and the written submissions filed by the Advocate, I find two issues commending themselves for determination in the following order: 2. Whether there is a competent Reference before this Court. 3. Whether the taxing master erred in principle in taxing items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 37, 39, 40, 44, 61, 62 and 63 of the impugned Bill of Costs. 4. Whether judgment should be entered in favour of the Advocate pursuant to Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act as prayed. **Whether there is a competent Reference before this Court** 1. Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order makes provision for the procedure an aggrieved party must adopt. It provides: (1) Should any party object to the decision of the taxing officer, he may within fourteen days after the decision give notice in writing to the taxing officer of the items of taxation to which he objects. (2) The taxing officer shall forthwith record and forward to the objector the reasons for his decision on those items and the objector may within fourteen days from the receipt of the reasons apply to a judge by chamber summons, which shall be served on all the parties concerned, setting out the grounds of his objection. (3) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the judge upon any objection referred to such judge under subsection (2) may, with the leave of the judge but not otherwise, appeal to the Court of Appeal. (4) The High Court shall have power in its discretion by order to enlarge the time fixed by subparagraph (1) or subparagraph (2) for the taking of any step; application for such an order may be made by chamber summons upon giving to every other interested party not less than three clear days’ notice in writing or as the Court may direct, and may be so made notwithstanding that the time sought to be enlarged may have already expired. 1. In the case of Twiga Motor Limited -vs- Hon. Dalmas Otieno Anyango (2015) eKLR, the Court stated that; “The time limits in Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order have been put there for a reason. Failure to adhere to the said time lines would mean that the application would be rendered incompetent in the first instance.” [own emphasis] 1. From the above provisions, a party who is aggrieved by the decision of a taxing master, is obliged to file and/or lodge a notice of objection to taxation against the decision of the taxing master within 14 days from the date of such taxation. The filing of the notice of objection is therefore mandatory. 2. Imperatively, the notice of objection to taxation must stipulate and/or contain the particular items, which the Applicant contends to be aggrieved and/or to be dissatisfied with. A Notice of Objection to taxation should not be omnibus. An omnibus notice if any, would be incompetent and incapable of grounding a Reference. 3. In the case of Machira & Company Advocates -vs- Arthur K. Magugu & Another (2012) eKLR, the Court of Appeal agreed with the findings of Ringera J who had struck out the reference for being incompetent on the finding that there was no written notice of objection under rule 11. The Court held, inter alia, “Sub-rule (1) requires the party objecting to give notice in writing within 14 days “of the items of taxation to which he objects”. As the trial judge correctly found, the Respondents notice of 1st August, 2001 did not comply with that provision. It did not specify the items objected to so that the taxing officer could give his reasons on them. As we have pointed out the intendment of the Rules Committee in providing for objections to bills of costs to be dealt with by references and not appeal or review was expedition. If vague notices are given taxing officers might be forced to give their reasons for their taxation of each item including even those not objected to. That would of course defeat the purpose of that expeditious procedure. Having not specified the items objected to and sought reasons for their taxation, the Respondents notice of 1st August, 2001 was fatally defective. It follows that the Respondents’ reference based on it was incompetent and we agree with counsel for the Appellant that it should have been struck out. Having not given a proper notice specifying the items objected to and seeking the reasons for their taxation at the figures they were taxed, the issue of when the taxing master’s decision was received is immaterial and does not avail the Respondents. Under sub-rule (2), time stops running from the date a proper notice is filed, which of course must be within 14 days of taxation, until receipt of the taxing master’s reasons for his decision.” 1. In the instant case, I have perused the Court record, no Notice of Objection to taxation was ever filed by the Client herein; not even an incompetent one. In the absence of a Notice of Objection to taxation, properly identifying the items objected to and filed within the statutory timeframe, the Reference before the Court is incompetent. The Notice of Objection to taxation is the equivalent of a memorandum of appeal which identifies the grounds of appeal in an appeal. To this end I am persuaded by the decision in Chadha (Sued as the Executrix of the Estate of Kulwant Singh Chadha (Now Deceased) -vs- Chaudhri & Associates (2024) e KLR, where the Learned Judge struck a Reference for non-filing of the requisite Notice of Objection to Taxation. 2. On this ground alone, the entire Application fails. However, having listed the second issue for determination and as good practice dictates, I am enjoined to address and render determination on the same. **Whether the taxing master erred in principle in taxing items 3,4,5,6, 7,9,16,17,20,21,23,37, 39, 40,44,61,62 and 63 of the impugned Bill of Costs.** 1. I am well aware of the limitations of this Court in an appeal of this nature. The generally laid down principle is that this Court cannot interfere with the decision of the taxing master unless there is an error of principle, or unless it finds that the fee awarded was manifestly excessive or high to warrant such interference. 2. The guiding principles of setting aside the decisions of a Taxing Master were well established in the cases of Premchand Raichand Limited & Another Vs. Quarry Services of East Africa Limited and Another [1972] E.A 162, First American Bank of Kenya Vs. Shah and Others (2002) EA 64 and Joreth Ltd Vs. Kigano and Associates (2002) 1 EA 92. These includes; 3. That there was an error of principle; 4. The fee awarded was manifestly excessive or is so high as to confine access to the Court to the wealthy; 5. That the successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed for the costs he has incurred; 6. That so far as practicable there should be consistency in the award. 7. In First American Bank of Kenya –vs- Shah and Others [2002] E.A.L.R 64 at 69, the Court held as follows; “First, I find that on the authorities, this Court cannot interfere with the Taxing Master’s decision on taxation unless it is shown that either the decision was based on an error of principle, or the fee awarded was so manifestly excessive as to justify an inference that it was based on an error of principle.” 1. For starters, looking at the Advocate’s Bill of Costs dated 23/9/2022 and amended on 17/1/2025, as well as the Taxing Master’s Ruling on 27/1/2025, the Bill subject to these proceedings contains only 6 items, in addition to the claim for VAT and the 50% increment. The other items referred to by the Client are unknown to this Court. Although the Client submitted on those items and the various errors allegedly committed by the Taxing Master, the items submitted are not known to the Court. The Court cannot therefore pronounce itself on an unknown Bill and/or items. 2. The Client, however, has stated other grounds for contention in its supporting affidavit and has relied on them. The first ground is that the Taxing Master erred in finding that the Bill of Costs was unopposed. I note that, in fact, the Client opposed the Bill by its submissions dated 8/12/2025, filed on 15/12/2025. The Taxing Master therefore erred in finding, at paragraph 2 under the sub-heading ‘Determination and Analysis’, that the Bill was not challenged. However, given that the Taxing Master set out the reasons for taxation of each item and the Client has not shown how that error prejudiced it, it is my finding that the Court cannot interfere with the Taxing Master’s decision on that basis. 3. The Client has also faulted the Taxing Master for awarding VAT to the Advocate. Value Added Tax (VAT) is a statutory deduction under the VAT Act. Under the VAT Act, Advocates charge 16% VAT on their legal fees. As the Bill of Costs in these proceedings is Advocate-Client, I find no error in principle in the Taxing Master's award of the same. 4. As for the 50% increment, Schedule VI of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014, under which the impugned Bill of Costs was presented, is divided into two parts, each of which contemplates a different type of Bill of Costs. Part A provides for the Party and Party Bill of Costs, and Part B provides for the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs. 5. The Schedule provides the mechanism for ascertaining the quantum of Advocate-Client costs. This is done by increasing the amount ascertained as Party and Party costs (by agreement or by a Court order) by 50 per cent. The Taxing Master cannot be faulted for applying the law. 6. The Taxing Master has also been criticised for awarding costs of taxation. Section 27 of the Civil Procedure grants the Court discretion to award costs, which always follow the event. The Taxing Master therefore cannot be faulted for awarding costs of taxation. 7. In my considered view and for the reasons given this Court shall not interfere with the Taxing Officer’s decision for the reasons stated above. 8. The Client’s application dated 9/2/2026 is therefore dismissed with costs to the Advocate. **Whether judgment should be entered in favour of the Advocate pursuant to Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act as prayed.** 1. Turning to the Notice of Motion dated 29/5/2026, the Advocates have based their plea for judgment on the Certificate of taxation on Section 51 of the Advocates Act which provides: “(1) Every application for an order for the taxation of an Advocate’s bill or for the delivery of such a bill and the delivering up of any deeds, documents and papers by an Advocate shall be made in the matter of that Advocate. (2) 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. It appears from the section that whereas subsection (1) refers to applications for an order of taxation of an Advocate’s Bill and therefore to the determination of the Advocate’s costs, subsection (2) is clear that the certificate of costs, once issued by the Taxing Officer, is final unless set aside or altered by the Court. The Court may also order that judgment be entered in terms of the amount in the certificate of costs. 2. In the case of Lubulellah & Associates Advocates –vs- N. K. Brothers Limited [2015] eKLR the Court observed 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. See also the Supreme Court decision in Kenya Airports Authority vs Otieno Ragot and Company Advocates (Petition E011 of 2023) [2024] KESC 44 (KLR) (2 August 2024) (Judgment). Although the Client/ Respondent challenged the taxation of the Advocate’s Bill of Costs pursuant to Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the same has been disallowed the Court herein. 1. The Client’s reference having been disallowed, the Court enters judgment for the Advocate against the Client for the sum of Kshs. 22,452,846.32/=. 2. On the aspect of interest, Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order stipulates: “An Advocate may charge interest at 14 per cent per annum on his disbursements and costs from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the Client, provided that such claim for interest is raised in the bill of costs." 1. The Court of Appeal decision in Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates Vs Kenya Airports Authority (2021) eKLR. The Court of Appeal while considering an appeal from the decision of the High Court held that: - “As such, the rule (rule 7) deals with interest chargeable by an Advocate in respect of its claim for disbursements and costs following submission of a fee note. It is patently clear from the rule that interest begins to accrue from the expiry of one month from the date of delivery of the bill or fee note. The learned judge’s reasoning that the rule does not specify the date from which time begins to run was therefore a misdirection”. 1. The Court went further to consider the claim of interest after taxation of an Advocate -Client bill of costs and held that: - “Additionally, it is distinctive that a review of the applicant’s Bill of Costs does not disclose that the applicant included a charge for “interest at 14% per annum on his (her)disbursements and costs…”in the Bill of Costs. As the sole basis upon which computations of amounts due to an applicant are determined by the taxing officer, the element of interest defined by rule 7 ought to have been included in the Bill of Costs, but it was not. This omission would thereby negate the application of rule 7, and instead render the bill liable to an exercise by the Court of its discretion under section 26 of the Civil Procedure”. 1. I have perused the Bill of Costs that was drawn, filed and presented by the Applicant herein. The Applicant included a charge for interest in the Bill of Costs. Accordingly, guided by the above-cited binding authority, Rule 7 cannot apply in this case. I am then left only with the provisions of section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. Exercising this Court’s discretion under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, I will award the Applicant interest at 14% per annum from 24/3/2026, being one month after the Certificate of Costs was issued. The Advocate is awarded costs of the Application. 3. The upshot of my findings is as follows: 4. The Chamber Summons dated 9/2/2026, filed in ELC Misc. E202 of 2022, ELC Misc. E203 of 2022, and ELC Misc. E204 of 2022, is hereby dismissed with costs to the Advocates. 5. The Notices of Motions dated 29/5/2026 in ELC Misc. E202 of 2022, ELC Misc. E203 of 2022 and ELC Misc. E204 of 2022 are allowed, and judgment is hereby entered for the Advocates against the Client as follows; * 1. In Miscellaneous ELC E203 of 2022, Judgment be and is hereby entered for the Advocates against the Client for the sum of for the sum of Kshs. 21,027,030.00/= only together with interest accruing therefrom at 14% per annum from 24/3/2026 till payment in full. 2. In Miscellaneous ELC E203 of 2022 Judgment be and is hereby entered for the Advocates against the Client for the sum of Kshs. 21,415,441.50/= only together with interest accruing therefrom at 14% per annum from 24/3/2026 till payment in full. 3. In Miscellaneous ELC E204 of 2022 Judgment be and is hereby entered for the Advocates against the Client for the sum of Kshs. 22,452,846.32/= only together with interest accruing therefrom at 14% per annum from 24/3/2026 till payment in full. 6. The Advocates are awarded costs for both applications. 7. It is so ordered **DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY 2026 VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS.** **J. G. KEMEI** **JUDGE** **Delivered virtually in the presence of:** 1. Mr Bruno for the Applicant/Advocate 2. Ms Mohammed for the Client/Respondent 3. CA- Amos