https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6987

Microsoft Mobile OY v Musimba Investments Limited (Civil Case 536 of 2008) [2026] KEHC 6987 (KLR) (Civ) (14 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6987 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Civil Civil Case 536 of 2008 MO Ado, J May 14, 2026 Between Microsoft Mobile OY Plaintiff and Musimba Investments Limited Defendant Ruling 1.The Defendant/Applicant seeks entry of judgment in the sum of Kshs. 8,091,759.00 on the basis of a Certificate of Taxation dated 4th June 2025, together with interest at 14% per annum, and for the said certificate to be adopted as a decree of the Court. 2.The application is opposed. 3.The dispute between the parties is no longer live. By the judgment delivered on 21st July 2023, the Plaintiff’s suit was dismissed with costs to the Defendant. 4.Pursuant to that order, the Defendant filed a party-and-party bill of costs which was taxed at Kshs. 8,091,759.00. 5.What remains is the manner of enforcement of that certificate and whether interest is payable. Analysis and Determination 6.Having carefully read the application, the response to, and the rival submissions. I note that the application raises two issues:i.Whether the certificate of taxation may be adopted as a judgment under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act;ii.Whether interest at 14% per annum is payable on the taxed costs. Whether section 51(2) of the Advocates Act applies 7.The Applicant invokes section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. The provision allows the court to enter judgment where a certificate of costs has been issued. 8.That provision must, however, be read in context. 9.Section 51(2) is expressly framed in terms of a retainer. The reference to “retainer” denotes an advocate–client relationship. It follows that the mechanism for entry of judgment thereunder is directed at recovery of costs by an advocate from a client. 10.This construction has been affirmed in case law. In Nduati v Secretary, Firearms Licensing Board & Another [2023] KEHC, the court held that section 51(2) is confined to advocate–client bills and is not available in respect of party-and-party costs. 11.Likewise, in Republic v County Secretary, County Government of Kiambu & 2 others [2023] KEELC, the court held that a certificate of taxation arising from a party-and-party bill does not require adoption as a judgment before it may be enforced. 12.The rationale is straightforward. A party-and-party bill of costs arises from a judgment that has already awarded costs. Taxation merely quantifies those costs. The certificate is therefore not independent of the judgment but is part of the process of implementing it. 13.In this case, the costs sought arose directly from the judgment of 21st July 2023. The certificate of taxation only ascertains the amount payable. 14.To require a further judgment would be to superimpose a second decree over an existing one. 15.I therefore find and hold that Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act does not apply to a certificate of taxation arising from party-and-party costs. 16.The prayer for entry of judgment is therefore declined. Whether interest at 14% per annum is payable 17.The Applicant relies on paragraph 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. 18.That provision allows an advocate to charge interest at 14% per annum after one month from delivery of a bill to the client. 19.The wording is clear. The provision applies to an advocate charging interest to a client. It does not govern costs between parties to litigation. 20.The court in Nduati v Secretary, Firearms Licensing Board (supra) affirmed that paragraph 7 does not apply to party-and-party costs. 21.Further, interest on costs is not automatic. Under sections 26 and 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, interest must be awarded by the court. The general principle is that costs do not carry interest unless expressly ordered. This position was stated in Shadi Ram Mohindra v B.C. Mohindra (1957) EA 208. 22.In this matter, the judgment of 21st July 2023 made no award of interest on costs; the bill of costs did not claim interest; and the certificate of taxation contains no award of interest. 23.Further, there is no evidence of service to anchor any claim, even under paragraph 7. 24.The claim for interest is therefore misplaced. 25.Accordingly, I find that there is no basis in law or in fact for the award of interest at 14% per annum. 26.The application is premised on a misapprehension of the law governing taxation and enforcement of costs. 27.Accordingly:i.The Defendant/Applicant’s application is dismissed.ii.The Certificate of Taxation dated 4th June 2025 remains valid as to quantum but does not require adoption as a judgment under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.iii.The claim for interest at 14% per annum is declined.iv.The Defendant/Applicant shall pay the costs of the application, which is hereby assessed at Kshs. 50,000/- 28.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 2026HON. MR. JUSTICE MOSES ADO JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURTIn the Presence of:Moses C/AKisala & Kimathi…………………for the ApplicantGithine for Munyu……………for the Respondent