https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10635

Muriithi m/s Muriuki Muriithi & Company Advocate v Mwangi (Miscellaneous Application E033 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10635 (KLR) (14 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10635 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kerugoya Miscellaneous Application E033 of 2025 EM Muriithi, J May 14, 2026 Between Muriuki Muriithi m/s Muriuki Muriithi & Company Advocate Advocate and Rosemary Wanjiru Mwangi Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 19th September, 2025 seeking the following orders:1.That judgment be entered against the respondent in favour of the applicant for Ksh. 139,867 as per ascertained by the taxing officer of this court vide the ruling delivered on 17th September, 2025.2.The application was supported by a supporting affidavitstating that applicant filed a bill of costs against the respondent and on 17/9/2025 the bill was taxed at Ksh. 139,867. The applicant avers that the said taxation has not been challenged, set aside or altered and wish the same to be entered as judgment of this court to enable execution and a claim for interest.3.The Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit and avers that on 29th June 2024, he instructed the Applicant herein to represent him in SCMCC E083 of 2024.The agreed legal fees for representation was Kshs. 40,000/~. On the same day he paid Kshs. 10,000/= whereby he agreed that the respondent would pay the outstanding balance of Kshs. 30,000/= in instalment till fully cleared.4.The respondent avers that in honour of his agreement in relation to payments with the Applicant he cleared the outstanding balance of Kshs. 30,000/= in instalments. On 5/7/2024 he paid Kshs. 8,000/=, paid Kshs. 3,000/=, Kshs. 10,000/= paid via Mpesa on 4/9/2024, Kshs.5500/= paid via Mpesa on 14/2/2024, Kshs. 2,000/= paid via Mpesa on 16/12/2024.5.Further, the respondent avers that the Mpesa Statements clearly show that the monies sent via Mpesa was received by the applicant via his Number 0718248199. Thus, as evidenced in the attached payment receipts, amount as the legal fees are fully settled. Lastly, the respondent avers that the Applicant alleges that he owes him Kshs. 139,867/= claims which she denies in totality as they are based on falsehoods. Issue 6.Whether this court should enter judgment in terms of the taxed costs. Analysis 7.The law governing entry of judgment on a taxed bill is found in Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act which provides that:“The certificate of the taxing officer… shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the court, be final as to the amount of the costs… and the court may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including… entering judgment…” 8.The legal position is settled that once a bill of costs has been taxed and a certificate of taxation issued, the same is final as to quantum unless it is successfully challenged through a reference. 9.In Ahmednasir Abdikadir & Co. Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Ltd [2006] eKLR, the Court held that a certificate of taxation is final and binding unless set aside or altered. 10.In the present case, it is not disputed that the bill of costs was taxed on 17th September, 2025; A certificate of taxation exists; No reference has been filed challenging the taxation. 11.The Respondent’s argument that there was a prior fee agreement and that payment was made cannot be a valid ground at this stage. 12.The Court of Appeal in Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2020] eKLR emphasized that issues relating to retainer or fee agreements ought to be raised before or during taxation or through a proper reference. Once taxation is concluded and no challenge is lodged, the court cannot reopen the merits of the taxed bill at the stage of entering judgment. 13.The Supreme Court in Petition No. E011 Of 2023 Kenya Airports Authority V. Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates [2024] upheld the position as to finality of a certificate of costs, as follows:“(71)We are also acutely aware of the provisions of Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act which stipulate as follows:“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.” [Emphasis added]The words employed in the above provision are clear and demonstrate that the intention of the Legislature is that the costs ascertained by the certificate of taxation or costs, are final with respect to costs covered therein. In other words, a certificate of taxed Party-Party costs is final on the costs/fees ascertained in the Party-Party costs. While instruction fees ascertained thereunder are not per se binding, when it comes to the assessment of Advocate-Client costs, a Taxing Officer is required to consider the matter and where he/she is satisfied that it is a true representation of the work done by the advocate, it can be applied in the assessment of instruction fees under Schedule VI Part B. Similarly, the Taxing Officer may exercise her/his discretion and depart from the ascertained instruction fees and give reasons for such departure.” 14.The Respondent’s assertions on payment and fee agreement amount to a challenge on the taxation, which is legally untenable, at this stage. The certificate of taxation dated 17th September, 2025 is valid and unchallenged. The Respondent has not filed any reference to set aside or vary the taxation. Conclusion 15.The Respondent participated in the taxation by filing “Respondent’s Objections on the Bill of Cost dated 26th October 2023” in which she submitted that the Bill of Costs should have been assessed at total of 50,050/=. In assessing the costs, the taxing officer clearly considered the Respondent’s objection for in her Ruling of 17/9/2025 she held:“The Bill of Costs is for services rendered in Kerugoya Small Claims Court E083 of 2024. It is taxed under schedule 7 of he advocates Remuneration Order 2014. The Objection was filed…. The bill is taxed at Ksh.139,867/= amount taxed off is 68,904/=.” 16.There was no appeal by reference from the taxing officer’s determination on costs. issue of an agreement on costs now raised in the Replying Affidavit must be taken as an afterthought. Orders 17.Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Court finds merit in the application dated 19th September, 2025 for entry of judgment for taxed costs and it is allowed as prayed. 18.Costs of this application to the applicant.Orders accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 2026.EDWARD M. MURIITHIJUDGEAppearances:Mr. Muriithi for the Applicant.Ms. Rosemary Mwangi Respondent.