https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12697

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIAMBU CIVIL MISC APP NO. E126 OF 2025 JULIUS ORENGE T/A ORENGE J ASSOCIATES……….…. APPLICANT DIRECTLINE ASSURANCE COMPANY …………………. RESPONDENT VERSUS INTRODUCTION 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.99,950/= 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.99,950/= upon entry of Judgment. iii) That costs of this taxation proceedings and application against the respondent be assessed at Kshs.15,000/=. HCC MISC.NO.E126 OF 2025 RULING - Page 1 of 6 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 represented the Respondent in various civil matters and rendered professional legal services for which fees became due and payable. It is further averred that following the Respondent’s failure to settle the accrued legal fees, the Applicant proceeded to file an Advocate - Client Bill of Costs, which was subsequently taxed by the Taxing Officer on 22nd October 2025 at the sum of Kshs.99,950/=. 3. The record before this Court reveals that the Respondent did not challenge the taxation proceedings and there is no evidence of any reference having been filed against the decision of the Taxing Officer or any application seeking to set aside, vary or otherwise interfere with the Certificate of Taxation issued herein. The Applicant therefore seeks judgment for the certified sum in accordance with the provisions of Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. 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 Notice of Motion, the grounds upon which it is HCC MISC.NO.E126 OF 2025 RULING - Page 2 of 6 founded, 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 foregoing provision is that a Certificate of Taxation issued by a Taxing Officer constitutes final and conclusive proof of the amount of costs certified therein unless the same is subsequently set aside or altered by the Court. Where no challenge has been mounted against the taxation and there exists no dispute regarding the retainer, the Court is empowered to enter judgment for the certified amount. 8. The statutory mechanism provided under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act is intended to provide an efficient means through which advocates may recover costs that have already undergone the process of taxation. Once the taxation process is complete and the HCC MISC.NO.E126 OF 2025 RULING - Page 3 of 6 resulting Certificate of Taxation remains unchallenged, the Court’s role is limited to confirming the amount certified and entering Judgment accordingly. 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 that was issued on 25th November 2012.” 10. The Court is further guided by the decision in Musyoka & Wambua Advocates v Rustam Hira Advocates [2006] eKLR, wherein the Court observed that Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act grants the Court discretion to enter judgment on a Certificate of Taxation which has not been set aside or altered, particularly where there is no dispute as to the retainer. 11. Applying the foregoing principles to the present matter, the Court is satisfied that the Advocate/Applicant’s Advocate–Client Bill of Costs HCC MISC.NO.E126 OF 2025 RULING - Page 4 of 6 was duly subjected to taxation and was assessed by the Taxing Officer at Kshs.99,950/=. A Certificate of Taxation was thereafter issued certifying the said sum as due and payable by the Respondent. 12. The Respondent has not challenged the taxation process in any manner known to law. There is no reference on record seeking to impugn the decision of the Taxing Officer, nor is there any application seeking to set aside, vary or stay the Certificate of Taxation. Equally, 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 payable. 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 the premises, 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.99,950/= being the amount certified in the Certificate of Taxation issued herein. HCC MISC.NO.E126 OF 2025 RULING - Page 5 of 6 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 MWAMUYE JUDGE In the Presence Of: Counsel for the Applicant – Counsel for the Respondent – Court Assistant HCC MISC.NO.E126 OF 2025 RULING - Page 6 of 6