Kiruki & Kayika Advocates v Monarch Insurance Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E973 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 8820 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling)
The motion was misconceived because the applicant attempted to seek one consolidated judgment for multiple separately instructed, separately filed, and separately taxed advocate-client bills, each with its own Certificate of Taxation. Judgment must be sought separately for each certificate because each...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 8820 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant/advocate: Kiruki & Kayika Advocates; Client/respondent: Monarch Insurance Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E973 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Advocate Client Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment Under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Judges
- ["Sifuna Nixon"]
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Bills of Costs, Certificates of Taxation, Consolidation of Claims, Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kiruki & Kayika Advocates
Applicant/advocate
Monarch Insurance Co. Ltd
Client/respondent
Procedural Posture
Advocate Client Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment Under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment can be entered on a consolidated sum made up of several separate Certificates of Taxation from different miscellaneous files
- 2 Whether the doctrine of consolidation applies to separate advocate-client bills taxed in different files and arising from diverse instructions
Ratio Decidendi
The motion was misconceived because the applicant attempted to seek one consolidated judgment for multiple separately instructed, separately filed, and separately taxed advocate-client bills, each with its own Certificate of Taxation. Judgment must be sought separately for each certificate because each representation is a distinct transaction.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 30th September 2024 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kiruki & Kayika Advocates v Monarch Insurance Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E973 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 8820 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8820 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Miscellaneous Application E973 of 2023 Sifuna Nixon, J May 28, 2026 Between Kiruki & Kayika Advocates Advocate and Monarch Insurance Co. Ltd Client Ruling 1.This ruling is on the Application dated 30th September 2024. The same is made by the Applicant Kiruki & Kayika Advocates, a law firm that taxed their Advocate-Client Bills in various miscellaneous files. The Bills were taxed, and Certificates of Taxation issued in respect of each bill. 2.Later, the Applicant filed various Miscellaneous Applications against the Client. The Applications are for judgment in terms of the respective Certificates of Taxation, that were filed under Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act (Cap 16 of Kenya). 3.By this Application, the Applicant has sought judgment for Ksh 1,635,932=, being a consolidated sum total of several Certificates of Taxation, and several different Advocate-Client Bills of Costs. Analysis and Determination 4.I hold that the logic of consolidation that applies to consolidation of suits arising from the same transaction, does not apply in this case. 5.For its Advocate-Clients costs, the Applicant filed various different Bills of Costs in respect of each suit and/or instructions. They were different, and the instructions were on diverse dates. Similarly, the Bills were different and each taxed separately, with each now having its own Certificate of Taxation. They were taxed in different files. 6.I hold that judgments should be sought separately for each Certificate of Taxation. Just like at taxation, the Applicant files and taxes each Bill separately. As each representation is a different transaction. 7.For the aforegoing reasons, this Application is misconceived, hence is hereby dismissed. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIRTUALLY ON THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2026.PROF (DR) NIXON SIFUNAJUDGE