https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10470

Kinyanjui Njuguna & Company Advocates v Corporate Insurance Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Civil Application E136 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 10470 (KLR) (14 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10470 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Makueni Miscellaneous Civil Application E136 of 2024 JN Onyiego, J July 14, 2026 Between Kinyanjui Njuguna & Company Advocates Advocate and Corporate Insurance Company Ltd Client Judgment 1.The Application before me for determination is dated 15/09/2025 brought under Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act, Cap 16 & Order 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (Under Section 48) of Cap 16. It seeks the following orders;a.The Honorable Court be pleased to enter judgment/decree for Kshs. 366,523.50/= in the terms of the Certificate of Taxation dated 03/09/2025 in favor of the Applicant.b.That interest be provided for at 14% per annum from 08/03/2024 until payment in full.c.That the costs of the application assessed at Kshs. 50,000/= be awarded to Applicant. 2.The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the affidavit of Kinyanjui Theuri sworn on the same day. He deposed that the Applicant filed a Bill of Costs dated 09/09/2024 and a Certificate of Taxation dated 03/09/2025 (KT1) was duly extracted. That, the Respondent has continually failed to pay legal fees duly earned despite demand and notice thereof. A bundle of demand letters is exhibited as KT-2. 3.He averred that an Advocate is legally entitled to fees duly earned in the course of service in line with the Advocates Remuneration Order. That, the Respondent does not dispute the fees together with interest payable at 14% per annum from the date of demand and service of notice to settle legal fees. 4.The application is opposed through Grounds of Opposition dated 17/12/2025 and the Replying Affidavit of Emma Change sworn on 17/12/2025. The Grounds of Opposition are;a.That the application as framed is incompetent, misconceived, bad in law and an abuse of the court process.b.That, the Applicant has failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act to warrant entry of judgment as prayed.c.That the Certificate of Taxation relied upon is irregular, disputed and/or premature and cannot form a proper basis for entry of judgment.d.That, the Respondent disputes both the quantum of fees and the alleged date from which interest is claimed.e.That, the claim for interest at 14% is unsupported by evidence of a valid fee agreement or proper notice as required by law.f.That, allegations relating to the Respondent’s liquidity and financial status are speculative, unsubstantiated and intended to prejudice the court.g.That, the Applicant has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to justify the drastic orders sought.h.That the Application is devoid of merit and ought to be dismissed with costs. 5.In her replying affidavit, Emma Change deposed that she is an officer of the Respondent duly authorized to swear the affidavit. It is admitted that the Bill of Costs was filed by the Applicant but denied that the resulting Certificate of Taxation is final, undisputed or enforceable in the manner alleged. 6.That, the Respondent has raised concerns regarding the quantum and propriety of the taxed costs which concerns were communicated to the Applicant but have been conveniently omitted from the application. That, the Respondent has not admitted the claimed fees, either expressly or by conduct. 7.She averred that, the Applicant has not produced any evidence of a valid Advocate-Client agreement capable of attracting interest at the rate of 14% per annum. That, no proper or lawful notice of intention to charge interest has been demonstrated as required under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. 8.That, the allegation that the Respondent is facing a liquidity crisis is false, reckless and unsupported by any documentary or factual basis and therefore intended to portray the Respondent in an unflattering and prejudicial light. That, the Applicant has approached this court with unclean hands by selectively presenting facts and failing to disclose material correspondence and disputes between parties. 9.That, entry of judgment as sought would occasion grave injustice to the Respondent particularly where the taxed costs and interests claimed remain contested. 10.The application was canvassed through written submissions. 11.As to whether this court should enter judgment in favor of the Applicant for Kshs. 366,523.50/=, it was submitted that the Bill of Costs was duly served upon the Respondent and canvassed before the Taxing Master and the Respondent did not object as provided for by Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration Order) 2014. That the Certificate of Taxation is valid as it has never been set aside or altered before any court. 12.Reliance was placed on the case of Lubullelah & Associates Advocates -vs- NK Brothers Ltd (2014) eKLR for the submission that certified costs become payable if certificate of costs is not altered or set aside. 13.As to whether the Applicant is entitled to interest, it was submitted that award of interest at the rate of 14% P.A is provided for under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and should not necessarily be expressly stated under the Certificate of Taxation in the manner intimated by the Respondent. That, the interest rates of 14% P.A became payable 30 days from the date upon which the bill was served. Reliance was placed on the case of Okong’o Wandago & Co. Advocates -vs- County Government of Migori (2021) eKLR. 14.As to whether the Certificate of Taxation is ripe for enforcement under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, it was submitted that the said section grants the court discretion to enter judgment only where the Certificate of Taxation is final and amount is not disputed. That, in the present matter, the Respondent has categorically disputed both the quantum and propriety of the taxed costs. 15.As to whether the interest at 14% P.A is payable, it was submitted that interest under Paragraph 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order is only chargeable where; there exists a valid Advocate-Client agreement and proper notice of intention to charge interest has been issued. 16.As to whether the Applicant has approached the court with clean hands, it was submitted in the negative for the reason that the Applicant has selectively presented facts and suppressed material disputes between the parties. That, the application is a clear attempt to steal a march on the Respondent by converting a contested claim into a judgment debt through misrepresentation. 17.Having looked at the application, responses and rival submissions, the only issue that germinates for determination is whether the application is merited. 18.Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Cap 16 Laws of Kenya provides 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.” 19.The Applicant exhibited a Certificate of Taxation dated 03/09/2025 which states that; ‘…the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 9th September 2024 and lodged by Kinyanjui Njuguna & Company Advocates the Applicant, was on 17th July 2025 taxed and allowed as against the Respondent in the sum of Kenya Shillings three hundred and sixty-six thousand, five hundred and twenty-three and fifty cents (366,523.50)’. 20.The Respondent denied the finality of the Certificate of Taxation on the grounds that it is disputed and that concerns regarding the quantum and propriety of taxed costs were communicated to the Applicant. 21.The procedure for objecting to the decision of the Taxing Master is provided for in Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order [L.N. 8/1965, Sch.] which provides as follows;“11.Objection to decision on taxation and appeal to Court of Appeal(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.(2)The taxing officer shall forthwith record and forward to the objector the reasons for his decision on those items and the objector may within fourteen days from the receipt of the reasons apply to a judge by chamber summons, which shall be served on all the parties concerned, setting out the grounds of his objection.(3)Any person aggrieved by the decision of the judge upon any objection referred to such judge under subsection (2) may, with the leave of the judge but not otherwise, appeal to the Court of Appeal.(4)The High Court shall have power in its discretion by order to enlarge the time fixed by subparagraph (1) or subparagraph (2) far the taking of any step; application for such an order may be made by chamber summons upon giving to every other interested party not less than three clear days’ notice in writing or as the Court may direct, and may be so made notwithstanding that the time sought to be enlarged may have already expired.” 22.The Respondent did not provide any evidence of an objection as per the provision above or any evidence that the Certificate of Costs has been altered or set aside by the Court. The alleged communication, of the Respondent’s dissatisfaction with the taxed costs, to the Applicant does not suffice as an objection under Paragraph 11 (supra). 23.With regard to the interest claimed of 14% P.A, Paragraph 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2009 provides;“7.Interest may be charged. 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 such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full.” 24.The Applicant has exhibited evidence of demand for fees dated 25/04/2024 and received by the Respondent on 29/04/2024. The Bill of Costs dated 09/09/2024 is admitted by the Respondent and as such, it is clear that the interest of 14% is payable. The Applicant claims interest from 08/03/2024 but according to the demand letter, the interest should be from 29/05/2024 which is one month from the date when the bill was received by the Respondent. In the case of Okong’o Wandago & Co. Advocates -vs- County Government of Migori (supra), the court stated;“It is evident that the Respondent was served with a fee note which it failed to settle. Further, it was served with the Bill of Costs and several taxation notices which it failed to defend. There is also a Certificate of Costs dated 15/10/2020 of Kshs. 593,420.30/= which has not been challenged by the Respondent even after the County Attorney entered appearance on its behalf. The proceedings were unopposed. As provided for under Paragraph 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, I find that interest rates of 14% per annum is payable from 16/7/2020 being 30 days from the date which the Bill of Costs was served upon and received by the Respondent.” 25.Guided by the above case law, it is clear that payment of interest is provided as long as it is pleaded for which is not denied in this case. I am satisfied that interest is provided for in the law and as long as it is requested for, this court is bound to provide for it. It is an entitlement to an advocate pleading for it. In my view the same was properly granted and therefore prayed for. 26.The Applicant also prayed that the costs of this application be assessed at Kshs. 50,000/=. With regard to proceedings in the High Court, Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014 provides that; “in defended proceedings where the subject matter does not exceed Kshs. 500,000/=, the fees payable should be Kshs. 75,000/=. The subject matter herein is Kshs. 366,523.50/= hence costs of Kshs. 50,000/= are reasonable in the circumstances.”Having found as above, it is my holding that the application herein has merit and the same is allowed and judgment is accordingly entered as prayed. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY 2026..............................................J.N.ONYIEGOJUDGE