https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8919

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MURANG’A** **CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2020** **KINYANJUI NJUGUNA & CO ADV………………….……APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **DIRECTLINE ASSURANCE CO.LTD…………………RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. This Ruling is in respect of the Applicant’s Notice of Motion Application dated **12th June, 2025** brought under the provisions of **Section 51(2)** of the **Advocates Act** as read together with **Order 36 and 52, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010** in which the applicant is seeking for the following Orders: 2. ***That, the judgement entered in favour of the advocate, Kinyanjui Njuguna Advocate, Kinyanjui Njuguna Associates against the client/respondent, Directline Assurance Company in the sum of Kshs. 123,425/- together with interest thereon at court rates from 5th October,2020 in terms of Certificate of Taxation issued herein*** 3. ***That, A Decree does issue for the said sum of Kshs. 123,425/- upon entry of Judgement.*** 4. ***That, costs of this taxation proceedings and application against the respondent be assessed at Kshs. 15,000/-*** 5. The application is predicated on the grounds as set out at the foot thereof and the supporting affidavit sworn by the said KINYANJUI NJUGUNA & Advocate for the Applicant/Advocate on **12th June, 2025**. 6. According to the counsel for the Applicant, the Respondent instructed the Applicant/Advocate to act for and on its behalf in **Murang’a MC.CC/227/2018, Pauline Wangui Mutungu Vs Boniface Mugo Mwangi And Geoffrey Kamau,** in defence of its interest. That the Respondent failed to pay the legal fees thus prompting the advocate to file **Miscellaneous Application No.34 of 2020** for the bill of costs between them to be taxed. The Applicant’s application was allowed by the Taxing Master, Hon. E.M Analo in the sum of Kshs. 123,425 /= on the 9th March, 2022 and a Certificate of Taxation issued for the said amount on 22nd January, 2025. The Applicant now claims that the Respondent/Client has failed and or neglected to make good the said taxed costs. The Applicant has further deponed that the Respondent has neither disputed nor contested the costs awarded to the Applicant. 7. Further, that the Application was served upon the Respondent on **26th February,2026** as evidenced by the even-dated Affidavit of Service sworn by **Kinyanjui, Njuguna & Co Advocates,** theAdvocate of the Applicant/Advocate. However, the Respondent has neither entered appearance nor filed any response to the application. 8. The Applicant prayed for the subject application to be allowed in the terms presented as it is unchallenged. **Analysis & Determination** 1. Having read through and carefully considered the grounds set out on the face of the application and Supporting Affidavit, this court finds the main issues for determination being: 2. **Whether the Applicant has satisfied the threshold set by the provision of Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and Order 51 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules to warrant the adoption of the Certificate of Taxation.** 3. **Whether the Applicant should be awarded interest on the taxed costs.** 4. **Whether the Applicant/Advocate is entitled to costs of the application.** 5. The legal framework governing the taxation of an Advocate-Client’s Bill of Costs is set out under **Section 51 of the Advocates Act, Cap 16 of the Laws of Kenya** which provides and ensures a formal and legal process for settling disputes involving legal fees as between Advocates and their clients in the following terms: **“(1) Every application for an order for the taxation of an advocate’s bill 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, 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 entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.”** 1. In the case of **Musyoka & Wambua Advocates-vs- Rustan Hira Advocates (2006) eKLR,** the Court held that**:-** **“Section 51 of the Act makes general provisions as to taxation, as the marginal note indicates. One of the provisions is that the court has discretion to enter judgement on a Certificate of Taxation which has not been set aside or altered or where there is no dispute as to retainer. This, in my view is a mode of recovery of taxed costs provided for by the law in addition to filing suit.”** 1. The procedure for recovery of taxed costs is set underat**Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act** 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 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 judgement be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.”** 1. From the preceding provision, it is trite that once a Taxing Master taxes costs, he/she certifies the same by issuing a Certificate of Costs. If the said Certificate of Costs is not set aside, or stayed, or altered or appealed against on reference filed by the opposing party and if there is no dispute as to retainer, then, the Advocate is entitled to apply for entry of Judgement on the Certificate of Taxation which is originated by way of Notice of Motion application pursuant to the **provisions of Order 57 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.** Thereafter, the Court’s duty is limited to entry of Judgement according to the terms of the Certificate of Costs before it. 2. **Rule 11(1)** of the **Advocates Remuneration Order** provides as hereunder: **“(1) Should any party object to the decision of the taxing officer, he may within fourteen days after the decision give notice in writing to the taxing officer of the items of taxation to which he objects.”** **Rule 11(2)** of the **Advocates Remuneration Order** stipulates that: **“(2) The taxing officer shall forthwith record and forward to the objector the reasons for his decision.”** 1. In the case of **Lubelellah & Associate Advocates vs N.K Brothers Limited (2014) eklR,** the Court declared as hereunder: **“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 the ruling or there has not been a ruling and a determination made and not set aside and/or altered to upon would be required from the court serve to either Judgement. An affidavit is not required to file suit for the recovery of costs. The Certificate of costs in trial as to the amount of costs and the court would be quite in order to enter judgement in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent herein for the taxed party indicted on the Certificate of Taxation that was named on 25th November 2012.”** 1. In the proceedings before this Court, a perusal of the record shows that the bill of costs was taxed on the 9th March,2022 and a Certificate of Taxation issued on the 22nd January,2025 for the amount of Kshs.123,425 payable by the Respondent herein. Thereafter, the application for the said certificate to be adopted as a Judgement of this court was lodged on 12th June, 2025 and served upon the Respondent on the 26th February, 2026 as evidenced by the Affidavit of Service sworn by Kinyanjui Theuri, the Advocate for the Applicant/Advocate on 6th M 2026. 2. There is no evidence on record that a reference was filed challenging the contents of the certificate of taxation. This then renders the Certificate of Taxation uncontested. Consequently, I find that fourteen (14) days from the date of service upon the Respondent of the application filed on 2nd January 2026 lapsed on 16th February, 2026. 3. In the case of **VOHRA VRS VOHRA, CAROO4**, the Court of Appeal held that: **“Where no reference is made within the prescribed time the Taxing Officer’s Certificate becomes final and the court has no alternative but to adopt it as the judgement”** 1. From this holding, it is clear that where there no reference filed, the Court’s role is limited to adopting the Certificate without going into the merits of the case. The use of the word ‘shall’ under **Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act** deprives the court of discretion to either re-open taxation or go into the merits of the taxation. 2. Accordingly, this court finds that the Advocate/Applicant’s application has met the required legal threshold to warrant its confirmation and or adoption by the court. Therefore, the Certificate of Taxation issued on 22nd January, 2025 is adopted as a Judgement for the Applicant/Advocate on the taxed costs. 3. Once the certificate is adopted, it becomes a decree capable of execution in the usual manner. In the case of **National Bank of Kenya ltd vs Ndungu Njau EA 279,** the court held: **“A Certificate of Taxation is a judgement or decree of the court and is capable of execution in the same manner as any other decree”** 1. Concerning the issue of interest on taxed costs, **Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order** provides that: **“An advocate may charge interest at 14 percent 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. This rule determines how much instruction fees an advocate is entitled to and therefore, from this provision, it can be discerned that since instruction fees forms part of taxed costs under **Section 51 of the Advocates Act,** interest thereon starts to accrue after the expiration of one month from delivery of the Bill to the client. An interpretation of **Rule 7** of the **Advocates Remuneration Order** was rendered by the Court **in the case of Kithi & Co Advocates vs Mungai Down Limited (2015) eKLR** as follows: **“I will start with interest. There seems to be a misconception by legal practitioners on the award of interest on taxed costs. An advocate is entitled to interest on the amount taxed on an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs. The rate of interests awardable is 14% per annum applicable for 30 days after the date of service of either the Block fee note or Bill of Costs. This is clearly set out in Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order which provides so.”** 1. From the foregoing, it is clear that before a Bill of Costs is taxed and a certificate issued, there is no ‘debt’ which an advocate can claim interest on; conversely, once a Judgement is entered on a certificate of costs, the decretal amount which is sum taxed, begins to attract interest of 14% per annum thirty(30) days after the service of the Certificate of Taxation upon the client and not the date of retainer, date of judgement or date of filing the bill. It runs from the date of taxation. Therefore, for an advocate to be able to recover interest, there must be evidence on record on the date the Certificate was served upon the client and not the date of filing the bill of costs or adoption of the Certificate of taxation. In the case of **National Bank of Kenya ltd vs Ndungu Njau (2002) EA, 279,** the Court of Appeal held: **“A Certificate of Taxation is a Judgement or decree of the Court. It is capable of execution in the same as any other decree. Interest on taxed costs runs from the date of execution and not from the date of adoption. The Taxing Officer’s Certificate creates a debt to the advocate and interest should run from the date this debt is ascertained, which is the date of Taxation.”** 1. This position was reaffirmed in the case of **Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates V County Government of Nairobi (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application No. E027 of 2020) (2025)** where **paragraphs 21 to 24** quashed the Taxing Master’s refusal to grant interest while holding that interest on taxed costs including fees is automatic and the Bill need not plead it. **Rule 7:** **“A Certificate of Taxation is a judgement or decree of the court. It is capable of execution in the same manner as any other decree. Interest on taxed costs runs from the date of taxation and not from date of adoption. The Taxing Officer’s Certificate creates a debt…from the client to the advocate and interest should run from the date that debt is ascertained, which is the date of taxation.”** 1. In light of the foregoing jurisprudence, although the Applicant has not demonstrated that it raised a claim for interest in the bill of costs, having been ascertained by taxation, the costs became a debt owed by the Respondent/Client. The Court in the case of **Arthur Nyamweya & Co Advocates Vs Habil Olaka** ruled as follows: “**Interest on cost is not an interest of costs to be taxed. It is a statutory incident of a judgement debt. The Bill read not claim it the Respondent in accordance with the Provision of Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.”** 1. On whether the Advocate is entitled to a claim for costs of the application, it is evident that due to the failure by the Respondent to settle the decretal sum in the Certificate of Costs, the Applicant/Advocate had to move to recover its fees from the Client/Respondent under **Section 51(1) of the Advocates Act** by filing a Bill of Costs for taxation before the Deputy Registrar. The cost of drafting the Bill of costs and attendant taxation are covered in the Bill of Costs. However, once the bill is taxed and a certificate of taxation is issued, it results in a decree under **Rule 10(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules** which provides for execution, garnishee proceedings and attachment applies. 2. In reliance on the principle that *‘costs follow the event’*, It is worth noting that the Applicant/Advocate has been forced to litigate for his/her fees of Taxation. Therefore, costs of execution are included to the decretal amount as incidental costs. In this regard in reliance has been placed on the reasoning of the Court in **Utalii Transport Co ltd vs NIC Bank (2014)** **eklR** where the court held that: **“Costs of execution including filing, execution, application, advocates fees for execution, auctioneer/broker fees are recoverable by the decree-holder. They attract interest from the date of decree/taxation”** 1. In the upshot, having found that the Taxing Master duly taxed the Certificate of Taxation dated 22nd January,2026 in the sum of Kshs. 123,425/=. And furthermore, upon finding that the Respondent failed to file a reference in response to the said application within the requisite period of fourteen (14) days pursuant to **Order 11 Rule 9 (1)** of the **Advocates Remuneration Order,** the Certificate of Taxation became final. Accordingly, this court proceeds to allow the Notice of Motion application dated 12th June, 2025 with the following orders: 2. **THAT, the Certificate of Taxation dated 22nd January, 2025 and issued by the Taxing Master be and is hereby adopted as a Judgement of this court.** 3. **THAT the Judgement be and is hereby entered in favour of the Applicant/Advocate as against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs. One Hundred and twenty three thousand, four hundred and twenty five shillings only (Kshs.123,425) as per the Certificate of Taxation dated 22nd January, 2025.** 4. **THAT interest on the taxed amount shall run at the rate of 14% from the date of taxation.** 5. **The Respondent to bear the Costs of the subject application.** 6. It is so Ordered. **RULING DATED, SIGNED** AND **DELIVERED** this **18TH** DAY OF **JUNE,** **2026.** **HON. D. O. CHEPKWONY** **JUDGE**