https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8104

Kiruki & Kayika Advocates v Monarch Insurance Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Civil Application E015 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8104 (KLR) (4 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8104 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kakamega Miscellaneous Civil Application E015 of 2024 S Mbungi, J June 4, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES ACT, CAP 16 LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF TAXATION OF COSTS BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND CLIENT Between Kiruki & Kayika Advocates Applicant and The Monarch Insurance Company Limited Respondent Ruling 1.Before this Court is the Notice of Motion dated 2024 brought under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Cap 16 Laws of Kenya. 2.The Applicant seeks the following orders:a.That Kakamega Miscellaneous Application Nos. E015, E016, E017, E018, E019 and E020 of 2024 be consolidated;b.That judgment be entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs. 485,796/= being the certified costs taxed in the six matters;c.That interest be awarded on the taxed costs from the date of filing the application until payment in full; andd.Costs of the application. 3.The application is supported by the affidavit of Kiruki Mutwiri sworn on behalf of the Applicant. 4.The Applicant avers that the Respondent retained the firm of Kiruki & Kayika Advocates to act on its behalf in Butali CMCC Nos. E231, E232, E233, E234, E235 and E236 of 2020. 5.Following failure by the Respondent to settle legal fees due, the Applicant filed Advocate-Client Bills of Costs in six separate miscellaneous applications. 6.It is deponed that all the bills were taxed on 13th June 2024 and Certificates of Taxation issued in each matter for the sum of Kshs. 80,966/=, bringing the aggregate amount due to Kshs. 485,796/=. 7.The Applicant contends that despite demand, the Respondent has failed, refused and/or neglected to settle the taxed costs. 8.The Applicant further states that no reference has been filed against the taxation and the Certificates of Taxation have neither been altered nor set aside. 9.The Respondent did not place before the Court any material challenging the taxation or disputing the advocate-client relationship. Issues for Determination 10.Having considered the application, affidavit in support and the applicable law, the following issues arise for determination:a.Whether the six miscellaneous applications ought to be consolidated;b.Whether the Applicant has satisfied the requirements for entry of judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act;c.Whether the Applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed costs;d.Who should bear the costs of the application. Analysis and Determination Whether the six miscellaneous applications ought to be consolidated 11.The Applicant seeks consolidation of Kakamega Miscellaneous Application Nos. E015, E016, E017, E018, E019 and E020 of 2024. 12.In Law Society of Kenya v Centre for Human Rights & Democracy & 12 Others {2014} eKLR, the Supreme Court observed that consolidation is appropriate where matters involve common questions of law or fact and where consolidation would save judicial time and resources. 13.The six matters before this Court involve the same advocate, the same client, similar instructions and identical issues relating to recovery of taxed advocate-client costs. The Certificates of Taxation were issued on the same date and each arose from legal services rendered by the Applicant to the Respondent. 14.No prejudice has been demonstrated that would be occasioned to the Respondent if the matters are consolidated. 15.The Court is therefore satisfied that the interests of justice would be served by consolidation of the six matters. 16.Accordingly, Kakamega Miscellaneous Application Nos. E015, E016, E017, E018, E019 and E020 of 2024 are hereby consolidated, with Miscellaneous Application No. E015 of 2024 being the lead file. Whether the Applicant has satisfied the requirements for entry of judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act 17.The Applicant seeks entry of judgment on the basis of the Certificates of Taxation issued by the taxing officer. 18.Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act provides:“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 effect of the above provision is that once a bill of costs has been taxed and a certificate issued, the certificate becomes final as to quantum unless it is set aside or altered through a reference. 20.The Court’s role under Section 51(2) is therefore limited to determining whether:I.There exists a valid certificate of taxation;II.The certificate has not been set aside or altered; andIII.The retainer is not disputed. 21.In Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N K Brothers Limited[2014]eKLR, the Court held that where there is no dispute as to retainer and no challenge to the certificate of taxation, an advocate is entitled to judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. 22.Similarly, in Ahmednasir Abdikadir & Company Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Limited{2}{2006}1 EA 5, the Court stated that a certificate of taxation which has not been challenged is conclusive as to the amount due and forms a proper basis for entry of judgment. 23.The Applicant has exhibited Certificates of Taxation issued in all the six matters. Each certificate confirms taxation at Kshs. 80,966/=. 24.The aggregate amount certified is therefore:I.E015 of 2024-80,966/-II.E016 of 2024-80,966/-III.E017 of 2024-80,966/-IV.E018 of 2024-80,966/-V.E019 of 2024-80,966/-VI.E020 of 2024-80,966/-Total-Kshs.485,796/- 25.There is no evidence before the Court that any reference was filed challenging the taxation.Equally, there is no evidence that the certificates have been varied, altered or set aside. 26.Further, the Respondent has not disputed having instructed the Applicant in the matters giving rise to the bills of costs.The existence of the advocate-client relationship is therefore not in dispute. 27.In the circumstances, the statutory conditions under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act have been fully satisfied. 28.This Court consequently finds that the Applicant is entitled to judgment for the certified sum of Kshs. 485,796/=. Whether the Applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed costs 29.The Applicant also seeks interest on the taxed costs.Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order which provides:“An advocate may charge interest at fourteen 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.” 30.In Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority{2021}eKLR, the Court held that once a bill has been taxed and remains unpaid, the advocate becomes entitled to interest under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provided the requisite demand has been made. 31.Likewise, in D. Njogu & Company Advocates v Kenya National Capital Corporation{2006}eKLR, the Court affirmed that interest on taxed costs is recoverable where the client fails to settle the advocate’s fees after demand. 32.The Applicant has demonstrated that the bills were taxed and remain unpaid.The Respondent has neither disputed the debt nor offered any explanation for failure to settle the same. 33.In the absence of evidence showing payment or a challenge to the taxation, there is no basis for withholding interest. 34.The Court is therefore satisfied that the Applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed costs. 35.Since the application seeks interest from the date of filing and bearing in mind the discretion vested in the Court under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court finds it just and reasonable to award interest on the judgment sum at court rates from the date of this application until payment in full. 36.Costs ordinarily follow the event unless the Court, for good reason, orders otherwise.The Applicant has successfully moved the Court and has been compelled to institute these proceedings because of the Respondent’s failure to settle taxed costs. 37.No reason has been advanced why the successful party should be denied costs. 38.The Applicant is therefore entitled to the costs of this application. Conclusion 39.The Court is satisfied that the Applicant has established a proper basis for the orders sought. 40.The Certificates of Taxation remain valid, binding and unchallenged. The retainer is not disputed and the Respondent has failed to satisfy the taxed costs. 41.Consequently, the Notice of Motion is merited. 42.Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders:i.Kakamega Miscellaneous Application Nos. E015, E016, E017, E018, E019 and E020 of 2024 are hereby consolidated, with Miscellaneous Application No. E015 of 2024 being the lead file;ii.Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs. 485,796/= being the taxed and certified costs;iii.The said sum shall attract interest at court rates from the date of filing this application until payment in full;iv.The Applicant shall have the costs of this application. 43.It is so ordered. 44.Right of Appeal 30 days explained. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.S.N MBUNGIJUDGEIn the presence of:-CA: Zilda/VelmaParties absent though aware of ruling date.Court Assistant to upload the ruling on the CTS forthwith.