Mulekyo and Company Advocates v Mavoko Water and Sanitation Company (Formerly Mavoko Water and Sewerage Company Ltd) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E008 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3932 (KLR) (24 June 2026) (Ruling)

Mulekyo and Company Advocates v Mavoko Water and Sanitation Company (Formerly Mavoko Water and Sewerage Company Ltd) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E008 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3932 (KLR) (24 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3932 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Machakos Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E008 of 2023 NA Matheka, J June 24, 2026 Between Mulekyo and Company Advocates Applicant and Mavoko Water and Sanitation Company (Formerly Mavoko Water and Sewerage Company Ltd) Respondent Ruling 1.The application is dated 20th January 2026 and is brought under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act seeking the following orders; 1.That Judgment be entered for the sum of Kenya shillings twenty-six million, seven hundred and forty-three thousand, five hundred and eighty-four (Kshs. 26,743,584/=) in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent together with interest at 14% with effect from 20th July 2022 until payment in full, pursuant to Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, Cap 16. 2.That the costs of this Application be provided for. 2.It is based on the Supporting Affidavit of Antony M. Mulekyo and grounds that the Deputy Registrar taxed and awarded the Applicant herein advocate-client costs of Kenya Shillings Twenty-Six Million, Seven Hundred and Forty-Three Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighty-Four (Kshs. 26,743,584/=) in respect of ELC Suit No. 35 of 2010. That a Certificate of Taxation dated 12th November 2025 was issued in favour the Applicant confirming the said sum as due and payable by the Respondent. That prior to the filing of the said Bill of Costs dated 18th July 2023, the Applicant duly served the Respondent with a demand notice dated 20th July 2022, requiring payment of the professional fees. That by virtue of Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, interest at fourteen percent (14%) per annum became payable on the professional fees demanded in the fee note dated 20th July 2022. That despite service, numerous reminders, and lapse of court timelines, the Respondent has failed and/or refused to honour the amount certified as due or respond to the Applicant's communication. That under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Cap 16, a Certificate of Taxation issued by the taxing officer is deemed final as to the amount of costs, unless set aside or altered, and judgment may be entered in terms of the certificate. That the said Certificate of Taxation has neither been set aside nor varied, and the Respondent has failed, refused, and/or neglected to settle the amount certified as due despite service and follow-up correspondence. That this position was 3.affirmed in Lubulellah & Associates Advocates vs N K Brothers Limited (2014) eKLR, where the Court held that once a certificate of costs has been issued and has not been set aside or altered, "no other action would be required from the court save to enter judgment". That the Applicant cannot execute by way of the said Certificate of Taxation unless the same is adopted as a judgment of this Honourable Court and a decree issued. That this Honourable Court has inherent power under Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, and it is just and equitable that judgment be entered for the Applicant to enable it to enjoy the fruits of its duly taxed costs. That it is in the interest of justice that the orders sought herein be granted to enable the Applicant enjoy the fruits of his judgement. 4.This court has considered the application and the supporting affidavit therein. The procedure for the challenge of a Taxing Master's decision is provided under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order which provides as follows:(1)Should any party object to the decision of the taxing officer, he may within 14 days after the decision give notice in writing to the taxing officer of the items of taxation to which the objects.(2)The taxing officer shall forthwith record and forward to the objector the reasons for his decision on those items and the objector may within fourteen days from the receipt of the reasons apply to a judge by chamber summons, which shall be served on all the parties concerned, setting out the grounds of his objection.” 5.Be that as it may, the principles of varying or setting aside a Taxing Master’s decision are set out in the cases of First American Bank of Kenya vs Shah and Others (2002) EA 64 and Joreth Ltd vs Kigano and Associates (2002) 1 EA 92, that the Taxing Master’s judicial discretion can only be interfered with when it is established that the there was an error of principle, that the fee awarded is manifestly excessive for such an inference to arise, and where discretion is exercised capriciously and in abuse of the proper application of the correct principles of law. In First American Bank of Kenya vs Shah and Others (2002) E.A.L.R 64 the court held that;First, I find that on the authorities, this court cannot interfere with the taxing officer’s decision on taxation unless it is shown that either the decision was based on an error of principle, or the fee awarded was so manifestly excessive as to justify an inference that it was based on an error of principle”. 6.These principles reiterate the position of the Court of Appeal in Joreth Ltd vs Kigano & Associates (2002) eKLR, where the said Court held that a Taxing Master in assessing costs to be paid to an advocate in a bill of costs was exercising her judicial discretion and that such judicial discretion can only be interfered with when it is established that the discretion was exercised capriciously, and in abuse of proper application of the correct principles of law, or where the amount of fees awarded by the Taxing Master is excessive to amount to an error in principle. 7.In the instant case the Respondent has not raised any objection and the application is not opposed. I find this application is merited and is granted as prayed with no orders as to costs.It is so ordered. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT MACHAKOS THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.N.A. MATHEKAJUDGE