https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8813
The application was incompetent because the prayer sought judgment for certified costs without identifying the specific certificate of taxation, its date, or the taxing officer. That omission was material and went to the root of the application, so the court could not grant the relief sought.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 8813 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: C.M. Ongoto & Co. Advocates; 1st Respondent: James Munene Ndumbi; 2nd Respondent: Rosemary Njeri Munene
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application E616 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Advocate Client Bill of Costs Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Certified Costs
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Judges
- ["Sifuna Nixon"]
- Legal Topics
- Section 51(2) Advocates Act, Certificate of Taxation, Pleading Defects, Judgment on Taxed Costs, Advocate Client Bill of Costs
- 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
C.M. Ongoto & Co. Advocates
Applicant
James Munene Ndumbi
1st Respondent
Rosemary Njeri Munene
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Advocate Client Bill of Costs Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Certified Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application complied with section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and the Advocates Remuneration Order
- 2 Whether the omission of the specific certificate of taxation details was fatal
- 3 Whether judgment could be entered for the claimed certified costs
Ratio Decidendi
The application was incompetent because the prayer sought judgment for certified costs without identifying the specific certificate of taxation, its date, or the taxing officer. That omission was material and went to the root of the application, so the court could not grant the relief sought.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
- Applicant granted leave to file a fresh compliant application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI** **MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. E616 OF 2023** **IN THE MATTER OF ADVOCATES ACT CAP 16 LAWS OF KENYA** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF ADVOCATE- CLIENT BILL OF COST** **C.M. ONGOTO & CO. ADVOCATES .............................APPLICANT** **=VERSUS=** **JAMES MUNENE NDUMBI........................................1ST RESPONDENT** **ROSEMARY NJERI MUNENE.....................................2ND RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. This is an Application by C.M. ONGOTO & COMPANY ADVOCATES against their Clients JAMES MUNENE NDUMBI and ROSEMARY NJERI MUNENE. The Application which is filed under Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act (Cap 16 LOK); as read with paragraph of the Advocates Remuneration Order. 2. It is seeking that judgment be entered against the said client, for the sum of Ksh 271,939= as the said Advocates certified costs. 3. Upon considering the Application, I find that prayer (1), which is the principal prayer, has merely stated that these are the certified costs. 4. It has not stated that the said sum is as per a particular Certificate of Taxation, and neither has it stated the date of the certificate, and the name of the Taxing Officer that certified the costs. 5. This is a material omission that goes to the root of the Application, and renders that prayer ungrantable. 6. In litigation, a party is bound by its pleadings, and the court can neither read into a pleading what it has not expressly stated, nor into a prayer, what it has not expressly stated. 7. In the end, this Application fails, and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. But with leave to the applicant to bring a fresh compliant Application. **DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI Virtually on this 8th day of June 2026.** **PROF (DR) NIXON SIFUNA** **JUDGE**