https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6920

FA Badia & Co Advocates v Kanyi & another (Miscellaneous Application E206 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 6920 (KLR) (Family) (19 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6920 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Miscellaneous Application E206 of 2022 CJ Kendagor, J May 19, 2026 Between FA Badia & Co Advocates Applicant and Esther Wambui Kanyi 1st Respondent Teresia Wanjiku Kamau 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.Before this court is an application dated 26th September, 2025 which is brought under sections 51(2) of the Advocates Act and order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 2.The applicant seeks the following orders from this court.;a.That judgment be entered for the applicant against the respondents in the sum of Kshs. 1,303,702.94/- being certified costs as per the certificate of taxation issued on 12th August, 2025;b.That interest be awarded at a rate of 14 percent per annum on disbursements and costs from one month from the delivery of the bill of costs upon the respondents being 10th November, 2022;c.That the costs of the application be awarded to the applicant. 3.The instant application is based on the grounds outlined on its face and supported by an affidavit sworn by Badia A Fiona, who practices as an advocate under the name and style of the applicant firm. 4.The bill of costs concerned an advocate/client bill of costs between the parties arising from High Court Family Division Succession Cause No. 306 of 2013, in the matter of the Estate of Elizabeth Nduta Ngoru. 5.The applicant stated that it filed the advocate-client bill of costs against the respondent, and the taxing master taxed the bill of costs on 10th July, 2025, at Kshs. 1,303,702.94/=. 6.The respondents were duly served, but they did not file any response. 7.After reviewing the application, the supporting affidavit, the documents presented to the court and the submissions, the key issue for determination is whether the Applicant is entitled to the orders sought. 8.Section 51 of the Advocates Act stipulates as follows:i.………..ii.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 of that judgement be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs. 9.In the case of Otieno Ragot & Co. Advocates v Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd [2020] KEHC 8166 (KLR) the Court proclaimed as hereunder:“And as long as the certificate of taxation has not been varied or set aside the sums thereon certified are final.” 10.Similarly, in the case of Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N. K. Brothers Limited [2014] 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.” 11.Upon reviewing the pleadings and the court record, this court is satisfied that the certificate of taxation by the taxing officer issued on 12th August, 2025 is valid. The taxation has not been set aside, and it is not under challenge in any proceedings. 12.Pursuant to the provisions of section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the advocate/applicant herein is entitled to judgment for the amount indicated in the certificate of taxation that was issued on 12th August, 2025. 13.In light of the above, the court determines that no further action is necessary from this court, except to accept the certificate of taxation and issue the judgment as requested against the Respondent. 14.Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides that interest may be paid on costs as follows;“ 7.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, provided that such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill shall have been paid or tendered in full.” 15.In Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates v County Government of Nairobi (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E027 of 2020) [2025], the Court observed thus:“ 20.Under the cited rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, to lawfully claim the 14% interest, or any part thereof, on the taxed bill of costs, the advocate must:a.Serve the itemized bill of costs to the client,b.Explicitly include a demand for interest at 14% in the bill, andc.Wait for 30 days to lapse after service before interest begins to accrue. 21.If the advocate fails to include the interest demand in the bill, then:a.The taxing officer lacks jurisdiction to award that interest during taxation; andb.The court cannot include interest in the certificate of taxation or any resulting judgment adopting the certificate of costs.” 16.There is evidence that the claim of interest on fees was raised with the clients on 10th November, 2022. This was prior to the taxation of the bill. Consequently, the applicant is justifiably entitled to an award of interest on the costs incurred as provided for under rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. 17.The court makes the following orders:a.Judgment is entered for the applicant against the respondents jointly and severally for the taxed costs of Kshs. 1,303,702.94/=, as per the certificate of taxation issued on 12th August, 2025, with interest at 14% per annum from 10th December, 2022 until payment in full.;b.The applicant is hereby further awarded the costs of the notice of motion application. 18.Orders accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THROUGH THE MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE PLATFORM ON THIS 19TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.……………………C. KENDAGORJUDGEIn the presence of:Court Assistant: BerylMs. Badia, Advocate for the Applicant.No appearance for the Respondent.