https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9070

Kinyua & Maingi & Co. Advocates v Trident Insurance Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E332 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 9070 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (26 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9070 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Commercial and Tax Miscellaneous Application E332 of 2023 FG Mugambi, J June 26, 2026 Between Kinyua & Maingi & Co. Advocates Applicant and Trident Insurance Company Limited Respondent Ruling 1.This ruling determines the application dated 19th June 2024. On 24th November 2023, the Honourable Deputy Registrar delivered a ruling in which she certified the sum of Kshs. 132,492.00 as due to the Applicants which sum was in respect of a Bill of Costs dated 27th April 2023. A Certificate of Costs dated 7th May 2024 for the taxed costs was issued to the Applicants who now seek to enforce the same as a judgment of the court together with interest. 2.This application is supported by the affidavit of Njoki Kinyua, an Advocate and proprietor in the Applicants’ firm sworn on 19th June 2024. There was no response from the Respondent and further, whereas the court directed the Applicants to file written submissions, none are on record. Analysis and Determination 3.The Applicants have based their prayer for judgment on section 51(2) of the Advocates Act which states that:“The certificate of the taxing officer by whom a 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.” 4.The wording of the provision is explicit and leaves no doubt that the legislature intended the costs certified through taxation to be final in respect of the matters covered. Moreover, any party seeking to contest the Certificate of Taxation retains the right to file a reference against the Deputy Registrar’s decision (see Kenya Airports Authority V Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates, [2024] KESC 44 (KLR)). Since no such reference has been filed, there is no legitimate basis to prevent the court from entering judgment. 5.The Applicant has equally made a claim for interest under Rule 7 of the ARO 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.” 6.The jurisprudence on this provision is settled. In Jackson Omwenga & Co Advocates V Everest Enterprises Ltd, [2017], the Court held that under Rule 7, an advocate may only charge interest upon demonstrating two conditions: first, that the bill was duly delivered to the client and second, that the claim for interest was expressly raised before the bill was paid or tendered in full. Similarly, in Prof. Tom Ojienda & Associates V County Government of Nairobi, (JR Misc. Appln E027 of 2020) [2025], the Court emphasized that an advocate seeking to rely on Rule 7 must explicitly include a demand for interest in the bill itself. 7.The requirement for an advocate to make a specific demand for interest is a deliberate safeguard embedded in Rule 7. As the Court observed in Makhecha & Company Advocates V Central Bank of Kenya, [2020] KEHC 9769 (KLR), the purpose of such a demand is to place the client on clear notice that failure to settle the bill within the statutory period will attract an additional financial burden in the form of interest. The central issue, therefore, is whether the Applicant made a clear demand for interest in the Bill of Costs or Certificate of Taxation. 8.In this case, the Applicants have claimed interest in their deposition. I however note that neither the Bill of Costs nor the Certificate of Taxation contained an express claim for interest. In the absence of a prior demand, the claim for interest cannot be sustained within the meaning of Rule 7 of the ARO. 9.Nonetheless, this Court cannot ignore the broader policy consideration that the Advocate has been kept out of its money for over two years. In such circumstances, the Court is enjoined to exercise its discretion under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, which empowers it to award interest at such rate and from such date as it considers just. The rationale for such discretion is to ensure fairness and to compensate a party who has been deprived of the use of its money. Conclusion and Disposition 10.Accordingly, the application dated 19th June 2024 is allowed and I hereby make the following orders:i.Judgment is entered for the Applicants against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs. 132,492.00 together with interest thereon at 14% per annum from 7th May 2024 until payment in full.ii.There is no order as to costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBITHIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.F. MUGAMBIJUDGEDelivered in presence of:Parties absentCourt Assistants: Lillian & Gloria