https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12620

Orenge t/a Orenge J Associates v Directline Assurance Company (Civil Miscellaneous Application 130 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12620 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 12620 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kiambu Civil Miscellaneous Application 130 of 2025 B Mwamuye, J July 9, 2026 Between Julius Orenge t/a Orenge J Associates Applicant and Directline Assurance Company Respondent Ruling 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 Advocates Julius Orenge Advocate T/A Orenge J Associates against the Client/respondent, Directline Assurance Company in the sum of Kshs.118,250/= 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.118,250/= 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 acted for the Respondent in various civil matters, and in respect of the services rendered, an Advocate - Client Bill of Costs was filed and subsequently taxed by the Taxing Officer on 22nd October 2025 at the sum of Kshs. 118,250/=. Following the taxation, a Certificate of Taxation was issued. The Applicant contends that despite the taxation and notification thereof, the Respondent has failed and/or neglected to settle the certified costs. 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 that the Respondent lodged any reference challenging the decision of the Taxing Officer or filed any application seeking to set aside, vary, review or otherwise impeach the Certificate of Taxation. 4.The Court is satisfied that the Respondent was duly served with the application and the subsequent mention notice, as demonstrated by the Affidavit of Service sworn by Julius Orenge on 10th April 2026 and the further Affidavit of Service sworn on 18th June 2026. Despite such service, the Respondent elected not to participate in these proceedings. Analysis And Determination 5.Having considered the application, the Supporting Affidavit, the annexures thereto and the entire record before it, the Court identifies the sole issue arising for determination as 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 foregoing provision establishes the legal effect of a Certificate of Taxation. 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, altered or otherwise interfered with by the Court. The provision further grants the Court jurisdiction to enter Judgment for the certified sum where the circumstances contemplated by the law have been satisfied. 8.The rationale behind this statutory mechanism is that taxation proceedings are intended to provide an expeditious and effective means through which advocates may recover fees that have already been judicially assessed. Consequently, once taxation has been completed and no challenge is mounted against the decision of the Taxing Officer, there remains no further dispute for determination regarding the quantum of costs. 9.This position was aptly stated 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 for the taxed sum indicated in the Certificate of Taxation...” 10.The Court is equally 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 there exists no dispute regarding the retainer. 11.Applying the foregoing legal principles to the present matter, the Court is satisfied from the record that the Advocate/Applicant’s Bill of Costs was duly subjected to taxation and was assessed at Kshs.118,250/=. A Certificate of Taxation was thereafter issued certifying the said amount as payable by the Respondent. 12.The Respondent has not challenged the taxation proceedings in any manner known to law. There is no reference on record challenging the decision of the Taxing Officer, nor is there any application seeking to set aside or vary 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 and owing. 13.With respect to the claim for interest, Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order permits an advocate to charge interest upon fees due from a client in accordance with the provisions therein. The Court is satisfied that the Applicant has properly sought interest on the certified amount and that the same is payable in the circumstances of this matter. 14.Having considered the totality of the evidence and the applicable law, this Court finds that the Advocate/Applicant has satisfied the requirements contemplated under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. The application 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.118,250/= 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 -