https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12625

Eric Ntabo & Co Advocates v Trident Insurance Co Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E048 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12625 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 12625 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyeri Miscellaneous Application E048 of 2024 DKN Magare, J July 29, 2026 Between Eric Ntabo & Co Advocates Applicant and Trident Insurance Co Limited Respondent Ruling 1.This is a ruling over an application dated 16.10.2025. The Applicant sought relief that judgment be entered for the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Ksh. 8,885/= being the sum taxed and certified by the Deputy Registrar on 17.09.2025 as due to the Applicant with interest thereon. A certificate of taxation was issued on 01.10.2025. They also sought costs of Ksh 50,000/=. It is not clear what the costs were for. 2.The application arose from the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 26.01.2024. Be it as it may, the court has already assessed costs at a specific figure, that is, Ksh. 8,885/=. 3.The application is expressed to be brought under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. The said Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act provides thus:Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of the Advocates Act -“’Client’ includes any person who, as a principal or on behalf of another, or as a trustee or personal representative, or in any other capacity, has power, express or implied, to retain or employ an advocate and any person who is or may be liable to pay an advocate any costs.” 4.As a matter of fact, following the filing of the Notice of Motion dated 16.10.2025, there appears to have been no active participation by the Respondent in the proceedings. The effect was addressed in the case of Kalonzo Musyoka & Paul M. Wambua (Practicing As Musyoka & Wambua, Advocates) v Rustam Hira (Practicing as Rustam Hira, Advocate) [2006] KEHC 3078 (KLR), where the Court, H.P.G. Waweru, emphasized that where a party, though duly served, fails to participate in the proceedings, the Court is entitled to proceed and determine the matter on the basis of the material placed before it.Section 51 of the Act makes general provisions as to taxation, as the marginal note indicates. One of those provisions is that the court has the discretion to enter judgment upon a certificate of taxation which has not been set aside or altered where there is no dispute as to retainer. This, in my view, is a mode of recovery of taxed costs provided by the law, in addition to the filing of suit, where such suit would be unnecessary because, one, the certificate of taxation has not been set aside or altered and, two, there is no dispute as to retainer. Unless there is any other matter as would require ventilation in a trial, what would be the necessity of filing suit? In my view the court would be entitled to enter judgment under section 51(2) even where there is no suit filed. 5.Upon consideration of the material placed before the Court, I am satisfied that the applicant duly discharged his obligation by effecting service of the Bill of Costs together with all other requisite processes. The evidence of service has not been controverted, and there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent was denied an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. In the circumstances, I find no basis upon which to decline the application. Accordingly, the application is hereby allowed in terms of prayer (a). Further, interest thereon is awarded at 9% effective 01.11.2025, being 30 days from the date of the certificate of costs, until full payment. 6.However, there is no basis for granting costs of Ksh. 50,000/=. The said prayer is dismissed. Therefore, each party shall bear their own costs of this application. Determination 7.I therefore make the following orders: -a.Judgment be and is hereby entered for the Applicant against the Respondent in terms of the Certificate of Costs dated 25.09.2025 for Ksh. 8,885/=.b.Interest thereon is awarded at 9% effective 01.11.2025, being 30 days from the date of the certificate of costs, until full payment.c.Each party to bear its own costs for this application.d.30 days stay of execution.e.The Respondent be served with the order herein. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NYERI THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY, THE YEAR OF OUR LORD TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-SIX. RULING DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE PLATFORM.KIZITO MAGAREJUDGEIn the presence of: -Ms. Kimondo for the ApplicantNo appearance for the RespondentCourt Assistant – Timothy