https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11456

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION** **HCCOMM MISC APP NO. E062 OF 2025** **KAMAU CHEGE & KAGUNYI ADVOCATES...….….…….APPLICANT** **-VERSUS-** **NOBLE GASES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED...….……RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The Applicant filed a Notice of Motion application dated 29th October 2025 under the provisions of section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act, rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) 1962 Order (Rev. 2017) and all enabling provisions of the Law, seeking an order for entry of judgment for the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kenya Shillings Six Hundred and Forty-One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Five (Kshs.641,995/=) together with interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum with effect from 4th September 2025 until payment in full. 2. The application is premised on the grounds on the face of the motion and is supported by an affidavit sworn on 3rd November 2025 by Antony Kamau Chege, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and the Applicant’s law firm Managing Partner. Mr. Chege averred that the Applicant filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 22nd January 2025, which was subsequently served upon the Respondent together with a notice of intention to levy interest under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. He further averred that by a ruling delivered on 4th September 2025, the Bill of Costs was taxed at Kshs.641,995/=. 3. Mr. Chege stated that having served the requisite notice under Rule 7, the Applicant became entitled to interest at the rate of 14% per annum upon the expiry of thirty days from service of the Bill of Costs until payment in full. He asserted that despite being aware of the taxation and the obligation to settle the costs, the Respondent failed to pay the certified amount. 4. Upon perusal of the Court record and the Case Tracking System, it is manifest that although the Respondent was duly served with the pleadings herein, he neither filed a response nor tendered written submissions in opposition thereto. 5. Upon consideration of the instant application, the grounds on its face and the affidavit in support thereof, the issue that arises for determination is whether the application herein is merited. 6. The Court’s jurisdiction to enter judgment where an Advocate - Client Bill of Costs has been taxed, a Certificate of Costs has been issued by the Taxing Officer, and the retainer is not in dispute is derived from the provisions of section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, which states that - ***“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.”*** 1. In the case of **Kalonzo Musyoka & Paul M. Wambua (Practicing As Musyoka & Wambua, Advocates) v Rustam Hira (Practicing as Rustam Hira, Advocate) [2006] KEHC 3078 (KLR)** the Court in addressing the import of the provisions of section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act held that – ***“Sub-section (2) of section 51 of the Advocates Act gives the court the discretion to make such order in relation to a certificate of taxation that has not been set aside or altered as the court 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.”*** 1. On perusal of the Court record, this court is satisfied that the Applicant filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 22nd January 2025, which was subsequently taxed by the Taxing Officer vide a ruling delivered on 4th September 2025 in the sum of Kshs.641,995/=. The record shows that as at the date of writing this ruling, the Respondent had neither challenged the taxation by way of a reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order nor filed any application seeking to set aside, review or vary the Taxing Officer's decision. 2. It is further noteworthy that the Respondent neither filed any response disputing the existence of an advocate-client relationship in these proceedings. Equally, there is no material before the Court demonstrating that the retainer is contested. In the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the retainer is not disputed within the meaning of section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. 3. Having found that the Bill of Costs was duly taxed, that the taxation has not been challenged, and that the retainer is not disputed, the Court is satisfied that the Applicant has satisfied the statutory conditions for entry of judgment under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. 4. The Applicant has also sought interest on the taxed costs at the rate of 14% per annum with effect from 4th September 2025. The applicable provision is Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, which provides that – ***“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.”*** 1. The Court is of the opinion that the import of the foregoing is that an advocate may charge interest at the rate of 14% per annum on disbursements and costs from the expiration of one month from the delivery of the bill to the client, provided that the claim for such interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full. 2. The Court of Appeal in **Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority [2021] KECA 587 (KLR)** affirmed that entitlement to interest under Rule 7 is not automatic. An advocate must demonstrate that the Bill of Costs was delivered to the client, that one month elapsed after such delivery without payment, and that notice of the intention to charge interest was given before settlement of the bill. 3. Upon examination of the material placed before the Court, I note that although the Applicant deposed that the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs was served together with a notice of intention to charge interest under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, no documentary evidence has been exhibited to demonstrate either the issuance of the notice or its service upon the Respondent. The Court therefore finds that the Applicant has failed to prove compliance with the mandatory requirements of Rule 7 and consequently is not entitled to interest at the rate of 14% per annum as prayed. 1. Nevertheless, once judgment is entered under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the certified costs assume the character of a judgment debt. The Court is therefore empowered under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act to award interest on that judgment debt at Court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full. Such an award ensures that the successful advocate is compensated for the continued deprivation of the fruits of the judgment while remaining consistent with the statutory framework governing post-judgment interest. 2. As a result of the foregoing, this court is satisfied that the instant application is merited and makes the following orders - 3. ***Judgment is hereby entered for the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kenya Shillings Six Hundred and Forty-One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Five (Kshs.641,995/=);*** 4. ***The said sum shall attract interest at Court rates from the date of this judgment until payment in full; and*** 5. ***Each party to bear its own costs.*** 6. Orders accordingly. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026** **…………………………………………..** **W.N. MOLONKO** **JUDGE** ***Delivered Virtually in the presence of-*** *No appearance for the Applicant.* *N/A for the Respondent.* *Susan Nzioka- Court Assistant*