https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7348

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MURANG’A** **CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E063 OF 2025** **KINYUA AND MAINGI ADVOCATES….……….……… APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **TRIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED…....RESPONDENT** **RULING:** 1. By a **Notice of Motion** application dated 26th November, 2025 brought under **Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act**, **Order 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order** and **Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules**, the applicant/Advocates is seeking for the following orders:- 2. ***That judgment be entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Sixty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty Shillings and Forty cents (Kshs. 167,240.00/=) only being the certified costs due to the Applicant as against the Respondent.*** 3. ***That the Respondent does pay to the Applicant the costs of this application together with interest on the taxed sum.*** 4. The application is based on the grounds set out on its face and the Supporting Affidavit of **Kinyua Maingi Advocates** sworn on the instant date. 5. It is the Applicant’s disposition that he is advocate of this court and proprietor of the firm that was instructed to act for the Respondent/Defendant in KIGUMO SPM CC No. E235 of 2021 CHARLES KAMAU KIMANI VRS EVANS MONARI & MICHAEL WAMALWA SUWO as per the attached letter of instructions marked ‘NK-1’’ That the Respondent failed to pay the legal fees and this necessitated the filing of a bill of costs which was taxed by the Deputy Registrar for a sum of Kshs 167,240.00 and a certificate of costs issued to that effect. It is averred that the Respondent has continually refused, failed and or neglected to settle the taxed costs despite being served with the ruling on the bill of costs and taxation. 6. According to the Applicant/Advocate, the application was served upon the Respondent alongside the hearing notices and an **Affidavit of Service** has been filed to confirm that indeed service was effected. However, the Respondent has not filed any Memorandum of appearance or response to the application. All the same, the court still has the duty to consider the merits of the application. 7. According to the deponent, the costs between the Applicant and the Respondent were taxed and certified on 19th December, 2025 at ***165,948.40/=.*** However, the Respondent has continually neglected and or failed to pay legal fees duly earned by the advocate despite demand and notice having issued to it by the Applicant. **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 Section 51 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules** to warrant the adoption of the Certificate of Taxation. 3. Whether the Applicant should be awarded interested on the taxed costs. 4. The legal framework for Taxation on the Advocates-Client’s Bill of Costs is provided for under **Section 51 of the Advocates Act, Cap 16 of the Laws of Kenya.** The Section provides and ensures a formal and legal process for settling disputes involving legal fees as between Advocates and their Clients in the following terms:- ***[51] “General provisions as to taxation*** ***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, 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 **Musyoka & Wambua Advocates –vs- Rustan Hira Advocates [2006] eklR,** the Judge could not have reiterated the provisions of **Section 51** better than when he stated 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 Judgment 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 law in addition to filing suit.’’*** 1. The procedure for recovery of taxed costs is set out at **Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act** as follows:- “***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 disputed, an order that judgment be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.*** 1. From this 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 Judgment 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 shall be to enter Judgement in terms of the Certificate of Costs. In the case of **Lubulellah & Associates Advocates vs N.K Brothers limited (2014) eklR**, the court observed that: **‘‘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 Judgment. 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 judgment in favour of the Applicant against the Responder herein for the taxed party indicted on the Certificate of Taxation that was named on 25th November 2012.’’** 1. In this matter, the Applicant has deponed that his Firm represented the Respondent/Client as a Plaintiff the case of **KIGUMO SPMCC No. E235 of 2021, CHARLES KAMAU KIMANI & ANOTHER VRS EVANS MONARI & MICHAEL WAMALWA SUWO** in which the Plaintiff/Respondent and another has sued as an administrator of the Estate of JOHN KAMAU GITAU claiming for General damages under the **Law Reform Act and Fatal Accident Act**, Special damages, costs and interest arising from the death of JOHN KAMAU GITAU who died as a result of a road traffic accident which occurred on 24th January, 2022 involving **Motor Vehicle Registration No. KAB 647W,** which belonged to the 1st Defendant and was being driven by the 2nd Defendant. The matter was heard and Judgment was delivered therein. 2. The Advocate then filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 18th June, 2025 against the Respondent and on 15th October, 2025 the same was taxed in the sum of ***Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Sixty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty Shillings only (Kshs. 167,240.00/=).*** Thereafter, a Certificate of Taxation was issued on 13th November, 2025. According to the Advocate/Applicant, despite having been notified of the award and assessment thereof, the Respondent has neither settled the taxed costs nor filed a review of or reference as against the ruling on taxation or certificate of costs. Furthermore, the Respondent has not filed a response to the instant application despite having being served with the same alongside hearing notices which as confirmed by the affidavit of service sworn by Kinyua and Maingi Advocates. 3. I have carefully read through the record and confirm that the averments by the Advocate/Applicant that indeed the Taxing Officer taxed the costs in respect of the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs on 15th October,2025 and issued a Certificate of Taxation dated 13th November, 2025 which has neither been challenged, set aside, altered or appealed against by a reference or any other means. This Court is therefore satisfied that the Certificate of Taxation issued on 22nd December,2025 is unchallenged. 4. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Advocate/Applicant’s application has met the required legal threshold to warrant the confirmation and or adoption. the Certificate of Taxation issued on 13th November, 2025 as a Judgment for the Applicant/Advocate on the taxed costs 5. In regard to the second issue of interest on the taxed costs, **Rule 7, of the Advocates Remuneration order** 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. From this Rule, it can be discerned that interest on taxed costs 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 persuasively made by **Justice Mabeya in the case of Kithi & Co Advocates vs Mengai 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 interest awardable is 14% per annum applicable for 30 days after the date of service of enter 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 once a Judgment is entered on a certificate of costs the decretal amount is liable to attract interest of 14% per annum thirty (30) days after the service of the bill upon the client and not the date of Taxation. Therefore, for an advocate to be able to recover interest, there must be evidence on record on the date the bill was served upon the client and not the date of taxation. 2. In the case of **Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates V County Government of Nairobi (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application No. E027 of 2020) (2025),** the court had this for say on the said Rule: **‘‘20 Under the Cited Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration order, to lawfully claim 14% interest or any part thereof, on taxed bill of costs, the advocate must:** 1. **Ensure the interested bill of costs to the client.** 2. **Explicitly include a demand for interest at 14% in the bill and wit for 30 days to lapse after service before interest begins to accrue.** **21 if the advocate fails to include the interest demand in the bill, then** 1. **The Taxing officer lacks jurisdiction to include that interest in the certificate during taxation and** 2. **The court cannot include interest in the Certificate of Taxation or any resulting judgment adopting the Certificate of costs.’’** 3. I have perused the record herein and find the undated Notice of Taxation shows that a copy of BILL OF COSTS/ACCOUNTS was attached thereon for service upon the Legal officer, Corporate Insurance Company Limited as evidenced by stamp dated 25th November,2025. Further, a perusal of the Advocate-client Bill of costs dated 18th June, 2025 which was served upon the Respondent I find that it does not include interest at 14% per annum as a claim. 4. Therefore, in view of the above observation, the Applicant has been shown as not having raised the claim for interest upon the Respondent in accordance with the Provisions of **Rule 7** of the **Advocates Remuneration order**. 5. In the upshot, the Notice of Motion of application dated 26th November, 2025 is hereby allowed in the following terms: 1. ***THAT, Judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Sixty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty Shillings only (Kshs. 167,240.00/=) only.*** 2. ***THAT Decree for the sum of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Sixty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty Shillings only (Kshs. 167,240.00/=).*** 3. ***THERE shall be no orders on interest as this was not raised in the Bill of Costs dated 18th June,2025.*** 4. ***THAT the costs of this application shall be in the cause.*** 6. It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED** AND **DELIVERED** this **21ST** DAY OF **MAY,** **2026.** **HON. D.O. CHEPKWONY** **JUDGE** In the Presence of: M/s Amera Counsel for the Applicant N/A for the and by the Respondent Court Assistant: Nelly