https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8818
The application failed because the principal prayer merely referred to a certificate of taxation without stating its date or the name of the taxing officer, which were material omissions going to the root of the application; therefore the court could not grant judgment under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 8818 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Njoki Njogu & Company Advocates; Respondent: The Kenyan Insurance Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application E873 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Unopposed Application for Judgment on Taxed Advocate Client Costs
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; no order as to costs; leave granted to file a fresh compliant application.
- Judges
- ["Sifuna Nixon"]
- Legal Topics
- Section 51(2) Advocates Act, Advocate Client Costs, Certificate of Taxation, Pleadings and Evidentiary Affidavits, Application Dismissed for Defective Prayer
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Njoki Njogu & Company Advocates
Applicant
The Kenyan Insurance Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Unopposed Application for Judgment on Taxed Advocate Client Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant’s motion satisfied the legal threshold for judgment on a certificate of taxation under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act
- 2 Whether the omission of the date of the certificate of taxation and the name of the taxing officer was fatal to the application
Ratio Decidendi
The application failed because the principal prayer merely referred to a certificate of taxation without stating its date or the name of the taxing officer, which were material omissions going to the root of the application; therefore the court could not grant judgment under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; no order as to costs; leave granted to file a fresh compliant application.
Orders
- The application dated 5th September 2025 is dismissed.
- There shall be no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Njoki Njogu & Company Advocates v Kenyan Insurance Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Civil Application E873 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8818 (KLR) (Civ) (28 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8818 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Miscellaneous Civil Application E873 of 2025 Sifuna Nixon, J May 28, 2026 Between Njoki Njogu & Company Advocates Applicant and The Kenyan Insurance Company Limited Respondent Ruling 1.This is a ruling on the Applicant’s Application dated 5th September 2025. By which the Applicant who is an Advocate, is seeking judgment against her client the Respondent, for the sum of Ksh 166,996=. Which she has stated is pursuant to a Certificate of Taxation; and which she has stated are her taxed Advocate-Client costs. 2.The Application is brought under Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act (Cap 16 Laws of Kenya), and is supported by the Applicant’s Supporting Affidavit sworn on 5th September 2025. 3.I have considered the Application. Although it is an unopposed, it must be determined on merit, and has to meet the legal threshold for an Application of this nature. 4.Upon perusing the Application, I find that prayer (1), which is the principal prayer, has merely mentioned and alluded to a Certificate of Taxation. But has neither stated the date of the Certificate, nor the name of Taxing Officer that issued it. These are material omissions that go to the root of the Application, and render that prayer ungrantable. 5.In litigation, a party is bound by its pleadings, and the court can neither read into a pleading what it does not contain nor into a prayer, what it has not expressly stated. Besides, a Supporting Affidavit is for merely supporting the Application, hence can neither substitute nor supplement the Application. This is in the sense that an affidavit is merely evidence and not a pleading. 6.For the above reasons, this Application fails, and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. But with leave to the Applicant to file a fresh one, is compliant and legally sufficient in material particulars. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIRTUALLY ON THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.PROF (DR) NIXON SIFUNAJUDGE