Maina Rogoi & Company Advocates v Monarch Insurance Company (Miscellaneous Civil Application E169 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10305 (KLR) (Civ) (6 July 2026) (Ruling)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **CIVIL DIVISION** **MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. E169 OF 2025** **MAINA ROGOI & CO. ADVOCATES..................................ADVOCATE** **=VERSUS=** **THE MONARCH INSURANCE COMPANY.................................CLIENT** **RULING** 1. This ruling is on the Applicant’s Application dated 14th February, 2025. By which the Applicant who is an Advocate is seeking an order consolidating his several bills of costs into one, and have it taxed as one. The bills relate to different cases, different institutions, but are between this same Advocate and this same Client. The bills ae over 87 in number. 2. The Application is principally based on the ground that the proposed consolidation will make execution easier and also ensure procedural efficiency and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 3. The Application has been opposed by the Client. Who denied instructions/retainer is some of the matters. It has also stated that there is no legal provision for consolidation. The opposition is through a Replying Affidavit. Where the Client has also stated that the proposed consolidation is aimed facilitating fraud and avoiding proper scrutiny of the over 87 bills of costs. 4. The Applicant has cited several legal authorities where consolidation was allowed. They are all High Court decisions and are the following: ***Kenyariri & Associates Advocates v. National Bank of Kenya Ltd [2016] KEHC 6898 (KLR)****;* ***Geoffrey Eric Wesonga t/a Wesonga Mutembei & Kigen Advocates v. ARN Security & Training Services Ltd & Another [2021] KEHC 6583 (KLR)****; and* ***KTK Advocates v. Salle & Another [2023] KEHC 21364 (KLR)***. 5. On the philosophy behind consolidation, the Applicant has cited ***Stumberg & Another v. Potiquieter [1970] EA 323*** . Which is on consolidation of suits. That authority is therefore distinguishable from this one; as it relates to consolidation of suits and not consolidation of bills of costs. Especially by use of the phrase “common questions of law and fact.” 6. I hold that a court’s jurisdiction should be invoked through an enabling provision of the law. When that is done, it is said the court’s jurisdiction has been properly invoked. Mere convenience is neither a rule of the law nor legal doctrine. 7. Advocates being experts in the law, need to know this better. That any Application brought in the name of the law, must be in accordance with the law, within the law, and must follow the law. Doing otherwise is akin to groping in the dark. Litigation and the practice of law are an orderly enterprise that is guided by prescribed procedures and rules. 8. While the cited decisions are not binding on the High Court itself, I am also of a different persuasion from those. I am of the fervent view that different bills of costs need to be taxed differently. For reason that: 9. *They relate to different suits or matters;* 10. *They relate to different instructions;* 11. *Each bill needs to be scrutinized individually, hence different bills cannot be dealt with as one whole;* 12. *Taxation is a special judicial function in which the Taxing Officer is exercising a jurisdiction that is sui generis;* 13. *Bills of costs not being suits, the provision on consolidation of suits, does not apply to them; and* 14. *The Advocates Remuneration Order has no provision on consolidation of bills of costs.* 15. The upshot of the aforegoing is that bills costs cannot be consolidated into one and taxed as one. Even if they are between the same parties. 16. Consequently, this Application fails; and is hereby dismissed accordingly, but with no order as to costs. **DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI Virtually on this 6TH day of July 2026.** **PROF (DR) NIXON SIFUNA** **JUDGE**