https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6972

Mbaya & 2 others v Chege Wainaina & Company Advocates (Miscellaneous Application E047 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 6972 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6972 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Commercial and Tax Miscellaneous Application E047 of 2022 FG Mugambi, J May 21, 2026 Between Andrew Kikuyu Mbaya 1st Client Nehemiah K Rotich 2nd Client Mekan East Africa Limited 3rd Client and Chege Wainaina & Company Advocates Advocate Ruling 1.By a Notice of Motion dated 29th August 2023, the Clients moved this Court seeking an order for stay of the present proceedings, pending the hearing and determination of HCCOMM E390 of 2023 (OS). The application is predicated upon and supported by the affidavit of Nehemiah K. Rotich, duly sworn on the same date. I note that the said application was not opposed by the Advocate. Nevertheless, this Court is enjoined to interrogate and pronounce itself upon the application on its merits. Analysis and Determination 2.Turning to the grounds advanced by the Clients in support of their prayer for stay of the present proceedings, this Court has been referred, through the Advocate’s Supplementary List of Authorities dated 21st July 2025, to its own Ruling delivered on 5th July 2024 in HCCOMM E390 of 2023 (OS). In that decision, this Court engaged with the parties’ submissions and held that, for all intents and purposes, that matter was sub judice, being that the objections being raised on the Advocates’ fees ought properly to have been raised in the taxation proceedings. Consequent upon that finding, the Court dismissed the said OS with costs to the Advocate. 3.In light of the dismissal of the OS, the substratum upon which the application dated 29th August 2023 was anchored has been extinguished. No further ground remains to justify the continued stay of these proceedings. Accordingly, the application for stay is hereby dismissed, with no orders as to costs, thereby paving way for the consideration of the Advocate’s pending application. Application dated 7th October 2022: 4.The Advocate’s application seeks entry of Judgement for the sum of Kshs. 2,759,588.51/= as it appears on the Certificate of Taxation dated 8th September 2022 with interest from the date of filling the application until payment is full. The application was supported by the affidavits of Dennis Maina sworn on 7th October and 2022 and 19th July 2023 and opposed by way of a Replying Affidavit sworn on 10th November 2022 and the supplementary affidavits sworn on 21st March 2023 and 23rd June 2023 respectively. I have also considered the written submissions filed by the parties. Analysis and Determination 5.The matter presently before this Court is one that is heavily contested. At the center of the dispute is the Advocate’s fees for legal services rendered to the Clients. The Clients contend that the Advocate should not be granted the prayers sought for reason that they do not owe the Advocate the sum of Kshs. 2,759,588.51/- as taxed by the Hon. Deputy Registrar. 6.Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act is unequivocal in its terms, and provides that:“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.” 7.The statutory framework establishes that a certificate of taxation, once duly issued, attains finality as to the quantum of costs, save where it is set aside or varied by the Court. The jurisprudence on the subject has consistently affirmed that where such a certificate remains unpaid or is not successfully impugned, the Court’s only task is to give effect to it by entering judgment for the certified sum. (See Nyabena Alfred T/A Nyabena Nyakundi & Company Advocates V Tourism Promotion Limited T/A Serena hotel, [2018] eKLR, amongst others). 8.The facts of this matter are not in dispute. The Advocates lodged their Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 20th January 2022 for taxation. The Bill was duly taxed by the Taxing Officer of this Court and allowed in the sum of Kshs. 2,759,588.51. Pursuant thereto, a Certificate of Costs was issued on 8th September 2022. The Clients did not invoke the procedure prescribed under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order by filing a reference to challenge the Taxing Officer’s decision. They have given no explanation for their failure to pursue the prescribed procedure. Instead, they elected to institute HCCOMM E390 of 2023 (OS), which suit was subsequently dismissed by this Court on 5th July 2024. 9.This Court cannot, therefore, entertain submissions that are now being raised against the Bill of Costs, absent any lawful challenge mounted at the appropriate stage before the Taxing Officer. To do so would amount to sitting on appeal over the Taxing Officer’s decision without jurisdiction, contrary to the clear provisions of the Advocates Act and the Remuneration Order. Disposition 10.There being no basis upon which to deny the Advocate the reliefs sought, I hereby grant the following orders:i.Judgment be and is hereby entered for the Advocate/Applicant against the Clients/Respondents for Kshs. 2,759,588.51/= as it appears on the Certificate of Taxation dated 8th September 2022 with interest from the date of filling this Application until payment is full.ii.The Advocate/Applicant is awarded costs of Notice of Motion dated 7th October 2022. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026.F. MUGAMBIJUDGEDelivered in presence of:Ms Njoroge for Mereka for clientCourt Assistants: Lillian & Gloria