https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3366

Kahuthu & K Advocates v Kenya Bowling Centers Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E236 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3366 (KLR) (4 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3366 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E236 of 2024 CG Mbogo, J June 4, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: THE ADVOCATES ACТ, САР 16 AND IN THE MATTER OF: RECOVERY OF TAXED COSTS AS BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A CLIENT Between Kahuthu & K Advocates Applicant and Kenya Bowling Centers Limited Respondent Ruling 1.Before me is the notice of motion dated 20th August, 2025 filed by the advocate/applicant, and it is expressed to be brought under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Cap 16 and Paragraphs 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration Order) seeking the following orders:-1.That the certificate of costs issued by the deputy registrar in Milimani ELC Misc. E236 of 2024 be adopted as a judgment of this honourable court.2.That a decree do issue in the said matter for the amounts certified being Kshs.334,065.20.3.That interest do accrue on the said sums at the rate of 14% per annum from the 15th of May 2025 (sic), being 30 days from the date of taxation until payment in full.4.That the costs of this application be provided for. 2.The application is premised on the grounds on its face. It is further supported by the affidavit of G.J Kahuthu, the advocate/applicant, sworn on even date. The advocate/applicant deposed that pursuant to instructions given by the client/respondent, they rendered professional services in NAIROBI BPRT No. 774 of 2016 Uchumi Supermarkets Limited V Kenya Bowling Centers Limited & 2 Others. Further, that they raised their fee note which the client/respondent refused to settle prompting them to file the advocate-client bill of costs for taxation. 3.He added that the same was taxed on 15th April, 2025 and a certificate of taxation issued by the deputy registrar in favour of the advocate/applicant for Kshs.334,065.20. The advocate/applicant deposed that they served the client/respondent with the certificate of taxation on 2nd July, 2025 demanding for payment but the same was ignored. He deposed that the certificate was never contested or set aside by the client/respondent or set aside by the court. 4.The application was opposed vide the replying affidavit of Julius Waweru Mungai, the director of the client/respondent sworn on 27th February, 2026. The client/respondent averred that after Uchumi Supermarkets was evicted, the advocate/applicant took control of the property (including rental units and parking spaces) and began collecting rent and other revenues without any instructions or legal qualification to provide property management services. 5.He deponed that despite demands, the advocate/applicant refused to render accounts for the revenues collected. Further, that the advocate/applicant irregularly deducted legal and management fees from the said proceeds without any agreement. The client/respondent deposed that the advocate/applicant filed for costs without having disclosed monies already paid or funds withheld from the rental collections. 6.It was further deposed that the client/respondent had a right of set-off, arguing that any judgment on the taxed costs should be delayed until the advocate/applicant renders a full account, since the amounts held could offset the legal fees owed. The client/respondent deposed that the advocate/applicant will suffer no prejudice if it is allowed to pursue its claim for the withheld funds first. 7.The application was canvassed through written submissions. The advocate/applicant filed their written submissions dated 16th March, 2026. By the time of writing this ruling, the client/respondent had not filed its written submissions. Be that as it may, the court has carefully considered the application, replying affidavit and the submissions. In my view, the issue for determination is whether the application is merited. 8.It is not disputed that a certificate of taxation was issued on 24th June, 2025 and the advocate/applicant now seeks for judgment to be entered as per the certificate of taxation. Section 51[2] of the Advocates Act provides as follows:-“(1)Every application for an order for the taxation of an advocate’s bill or for the delivery of such a bill and the delivering up of any deeds, documents and papers by an advocate shall be made in the matter of that advocate.(2)The certificate of the taxing officer by whom any bill has been taxed shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the court, shall 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.” 9.It is trite law that an applicant desirous to procure judgment in terms of the certificate of taxation is obligated to satisfy the court on two conditions. First, an applicant must satisfy the court that there is in existence a certificate of taxation which has become final in all respects. The second condition that must be satisfied by an applicant relates to proof that there is no dispute as pertains to retainer. 10.There is no record in this file indicating that the client/respondent challenged the ruling of the taxation of the bill of costs by the deputy registrar, and neither did the client/respondent file a notice of objection. 11.It is my view that there being no pending reference in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the certificate of taxation issued by the taxing officer has not been impugned. In view of the same, the certificate of taxation is final in all respects and thus the advocate/applicant complied with the first condition. 12.On the second condition of a retainer, it is not in dispute that the client/respondent engaged the legal professional services of the advocate/applicant as expressly admitted under paragraph 8 of the client/respondent’s replying affidavit. I have perused the taxing officer’s ruling and it is a fact that the issue of unauthorized management and/or failure to account for funds by the advocate/applicant did not form part of the ruling. For this reason, I will no belabour much since the client/respondent is trying to introduce new issues at this stage while it has had a chance to challenge the bill of costs. 13.It is this court’s view that it was not in contention that there existed a retainer by virtue of the advocate-client relationship between the parties. I find that the advocate/applicant has equally met and satisfied the second limb. 14.From the above, I am satisfied that the advocate/applicant has met and satisfied the twin ingredients that underpin the provisions of Section 51[2] of the Advocates Act. The advocate/applicant also sought for interests at 14% per annum from the date of taxation of the advocate-client bill of costs. 15.Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides for the charging of interests as follows:-“An advocate may charge interest at 14 per cent per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, provided that such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill shall have been paid or tendered in full.” 16.Consequently, I find merit in the notice of motion dated 20th August, 2025 and it is hereby allowed in the following terms:i.Judgment be and is hereby entered in terms of the certificate of taxation issued on the 24th June, 2025. The sum of Kshs.334,065.20/= shall attract interest at 14% from 15th April, 2025 until payment in full.ii.I make no orders as to costs.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. MBOGO C.G.JUDGE04/06/2026.In the presence of:Ms. Vena Atieno - Court assistantMr. Francis Maanzi for the Advocate/ApplicantMr. Oyoo for the Client/Respondent