https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12750

Orenge t/a Orenge J Associates v Directline Assurance Company (Civil Miscellaneous Application E104 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12750 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 12750 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kiambu Civil Miscellaneous Application E104 of 2025 B Mwamuye, J July 9, 2026 Between Julius Orenge T/A Orenge J Associates Applicant and Directline Assurance Company Respondent Ruling Introduction 1.The matter falling for determination before this Court is the Advocate/Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 22nd January 2026. The application is expressed to be brought under Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. Through the said application, the Advocate/Applicant seeks the following orders:i.That, Judgment be entered in favour of the Advocate, Julius Orenge Advocate, T/A Orenge J & Associates against the Client/Respondent, Directline Assurance Company in the sum of Kshs.120,618/- together with interest thereon at court rates from 16th December 2025 in terms of Certificate of Taxation issued herein.ii.That a Decree does issue for the said sum of Kshs.120,618/- upon entry of Judgment.iii.That costs of this taxation proceedings and application against the Respondent be assessed at Kshs.15,000/-. 2.The application is premised on the grounds appearing on its face and is supported by the Supporting Affidavit sworn by Julius Orenge on 22nd January 2026. The Applicant avers that his firm rendered legal services to the Respondent in various civil matters, for which professional fees became due and owing. It is stated that upon failure by the Respondent to settle the said fees, the Applicant proceeded to file an Advocate - Client Bill of Costs, which was subsequently taxed by the Taxing Officer on 12th November 2025 at the sum of Kshs. 120,618/=. 3.The record before this Court reveals that the Respondent neither entered appearance nor filed any response to the present application. Further, there is no evidence of any reference having been filed challenging the decision of the Taxing Officer, nor any application seeking to set aside, vary, review or otherwise interfere with the Certificate of Taxation. 4.The Court is satisfied that the Respondent was duly served with the application as evidenced by the Affidavit of Service sworn by Julius Orenge on 10th April 2026. The Respondent was also served with a subsequent mention notice, as demonstrated by the further Affidavit of Service sworn by Julius Orenge on 18th June 2026. Despite such service, the Respondent failed to participate in these proceedings. Analysis And Determination 5.Having considered the Notice of Motion, the Supporting Affidavit together with the annexures thereto and the entire record before it, the sole issue arising for determination is whether the Advocate/Applicant has satisfied the statutory threshold under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act to warrant the entry of judgment in terms of the Certificate of Taxation. 6.The legal framework governing the entry of judgment on a taxed Advocate–Client Bill of Costs is provided for under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Cap. 16 Laws of Kenya, which provides as follows:“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." 7.The effect of the above provision is that once a Bill of Costs has been taxed and a Certificate of Taxation issued, the certificate becomes final and conclusive as to the amount of costs certified therein unless it is subsequently set aside or altered by the Court. The provision therefore empowers the Court to enter Judgment for the certified sum where the requisite conditions have been met. 8.The statutory mechanism under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act serves as a means of ensuring expeditious recovery of costs that have already undergone the process of taxation. Where a Certificate of Taxation remains unchallenged, and there exists no dispute as to the advocate’s entitlement or retainer, there remains no further issue for determination regarding the quantum of costs. 9.This position was affirmed in Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N. K. Brothers Limited [2014] eKLR, where the Court held:“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. An Applicant is not required to file suit for the recovery of costs. The Certificate of Costs is final as to the amounts of the costs and the Court would be quite in order to enter Judgment in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent herein for the taxed sum indicated in the Certificate of Taxation...” 10.The Court is further guided by the reasoning in Musyoka & Wambua Advocates v Rustam Hira Advocates [2006] eKLR, where it was observed that Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act grants the Court discretion to enter judgment on a Certificate of Taxation which has neither been set aside nor altered, particularly where no dispute exists as to the retainer. 11.Applying the foregoing principles to the present matter, the Court is satisfied that the Advocate/Applicant duly subjected the Advocate - Client Bill of Costs to taxation, and the same was assessed by the Taxing Officer at Kshs.120,618/=. A Certificate of Taxation was thereafter issued certifying the said amount as payable by the Respondent. 12.The Respondent has not challenged the decision of the Taxing Officer in any manner known to law. There is no reference on record seeking to impugn the taxation proceedings, nor has the Respondent filed any application seeking to set aside, vary or otherwise interfere with the Certificate of Taxation. Further, no dispute has been raised regarding the advocate-client relationship or the Applicant’s entitlement to the taxed costs. In the circumstances, the Certificate of Taxation remains valid, binding and conclusive as to the amount due. 13.With regard to the claim for interest, Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order permits an advocate to charge interest upon fees due and payable by a client in accordance with the conditions stipulated therein. The Court is satisfied that the Applicant’s claim for interest from 16th December 2025 is properly founded and is therefore merited. 14.In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that the Advocate/Applicant has satisfied the requirements contemplated under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. The Notice of Motion dated 22nd January 2026 is therefore meritorious and is hereby allowed in the following terms:i.Judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the Advocate/Applicant, Julius Orenge Advocate t/a Orenge J & Associates, against the Respondent, Directline Assurance Company, in the sum of Kshs. 120,618/= being the amount certified in the Certificate of Taxation issued herein.ii.The said sum shall attract interest at the applicable court’s rate from 16th December 2025 until payment in full.iii.A Decree shall issue upon payment of the requisite court fees.iv.The Respondent shall pay to the Advocate/Applicant the costs of this application assessed at Kshs.15,000/=.Orders accordingly. File closed accordingly. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT KIAMBU ON THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.BAHATI MWAMUYEJUDGEIn the Presence Of:Counsel for the Applicant –Counsel for the Respondent –Court Assistant -