Kioni t/a Kabira Kioni & Co. Advocates v Monarch Insurance Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E047 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 4760 (KLR) (14 April 2026) (Ruling)

Kioni t/a Kabira Kioni & Co. Advocates v Monarch Insurance Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E047 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 4760 (KLR) (14 April 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 4760 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyeri Miscellaneous Application E047 of 2025 DKN Magare, J April 14, 2026 Between John Kabira Kioni t/a Kabira Kioni & Co. Advocates Applicant and Monarch Insurance Co. Ltd Respondent Ruling 1.This is a Ruling over a Miscellaneous Application dated 9.02.2026. The Applicant sought relief that judgment be entered for the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Ksh. 122,800/= being the sum taxed and certified by the Deputy Registrar on 22.01.2026 as due to the Applicant. 2.The application is stated to be brought under Section 55(2) of the Advocates Act but ought to have been brought under Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act. The said Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act provides thus:“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." 3.There does not appear to be active participation of the Respondent. The costs were taxed by this court, and no reference has been filed. There are two modes of recovery of costs. 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), H.P.G. Waweru J held as follows: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. 4.There is no allegation that the Advocate had no instructions to act in the matter for the client. The Applicant has done his part, serving the bill of costs and other processes. After filing the notice of appointment, nothing else was done. Consequently, the notice of motion dated 9.02.2026, is for allowing. The interest at 9% shall apply from 22.02.2026, 30 days after the date of the certificate of costs. Determination 5.I make the following orders: -a.Judgment is hereby entered for the Applicant against the Respondent for Ksh. Ksh. Ksh. 122,800/=.b.Interest thereon is from 22.02.2026, 30 days after the date of the certificate of costs.c.30 days stay of execution.d.File is closed. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NYERI ON THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026.Judgment delivered through Microsoft Teams Online Platform.KIZITO MAGAREJUDGEIn the presence of: -Applicant presentNo appearance for the RespondentCourt Assistant – Michael/MartinM. D. KIZITO, J.