https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8158

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8158

The application was unopposed, the certificate of taxation had not been set aside or challenged, and no dispute on retainer existed; accordingly the court entered judgment for the taxed sum. The claim for interest failed because the applicant did not prove that a demand or claim for interest had been properly raised...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 8158 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Julius Nyakiangana & Co Advocates; Respondent: Cherotich Evalyne
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E1092 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Adopt Certificate of Taxation as Judgment
Outcome
Partially allowed
Judges
["BK Njoroge"]
Legal Topics
Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Judgment on Certificate of Taxation, Interest on Legal Fees, Unopposed Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Advocates' Remuneration Commercial Law Advocate Client Costs Taxation of Costs Judgment on Certificate of Taxation Interest on Legal Fees Unopposed Application

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius Nyakiangana & Co Advocates

Applicant

Cherotich Evalyne

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Adopt Certificate of Taxation as Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the court should enter judgment for the taxed amount in the certificate of taxation
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to interest on the taxed costs

Ratio Decidendi

The application was unopposed, the certificate of taxation had not been set aside or challenged, and no dispute on retainer existed; accordingly the court entered judgment for the taxed sum. The claim for interest failed because the applicant did not prove that a demand or claim for interest had been properly raised before payment, as required by Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the applicant against the respondent in the sum of Kshs. 69,600 being taxed and certified costs.
  • Costs of the application to be borne by the respondent.