https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7963
The court found the application unopposed in substance and held that, because the certificate of costs had not been successfully challenged and the respondent had not paid, judgment should enter for the certified sum with interest and costs; the request for stay of execution lacked merit and was denied.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 7963 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ocharo Kebira & Co. Advocates; Respondent: African Merchant Assurance Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous E123 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Advocates Act Taxation/enforcement Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Certificate of Costs and Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- Application allowed in full except for the stay request, which was dismissed.
- Judges
- ["E Ominde"]
- Legal Topics
- Judgment on Certificate of Costs, Interest on Advocate Client Costs, Stay of Execution, Taxed Costs Enforcement
- 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
Ocharo Kebira & Co. Advocates
Applicant
African Merchant Assurance Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Advocates Act Taxation/enforcement Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Certificate of Costs and Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered for the applicant on the certified costs under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
- 2 Whether interest at 14% per annum should accrue from the date of filing until payment in full.
- 3 Whether costs of the application should be awarded to the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found the application unopposed in substance and held that, because the certificate of costs had not been successfully challenged and the respondent had not paid, judgment should enter for the certified sum with interest and costs; the request for stay of execution lacked merit and was denied.
Court Disposition
Application allowed in full except for the stay request, which was dismissed.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the applicant against the respondent for Kshs. 148,613/= being certified costs.
- Interest on Kshs. 148,613/= to accrue at 14% per annum from the date of filing until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA** **CIVIL MISC NO. E123 OF 2024** **OCHARO KEBIRA & CO. ADVOCATES …………...…………. APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **AFRICAN MERCHANT ASSURANCE CO. LTD …..……… RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. Before this court is an application by the applicant dated 12th May 2025 brought **Under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act Chapter 16 of the Laws of Kenya** seeking the following orders: 2. **That the Judgment be entered in favor of the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs. 148,613/= being certified costs due to the applicant as against the Respondent.** 3. **That interest does accrue on the sum of Kshs. 148,613/= at the rate of 14% per annum, with effect from date of filing until payment shall be made in full, as prescribed in paragraph 7 of the Advocates Remuneration order.** 4. **That costs of this application totaling to Kshs. 50,000/= be awarded to the Advocates/Applicant and be borne by the Respondent.** 5. The application is supported by the grounds on the face of it and the Affidavit of Eric Ntabo sworn on 12th May, 2025. 6. Counsel for the Applicant Mr. Ntabo stated that the application was served upon the Respondents and no response to the same has been filed to date. He therefore prays that the same be allowed as prayed. 7. Counsel for the Respondent Ms. Ayeira in her oral representations did not oppose the application but prays that a stay of execution does issue. 8. Counsel for the Applicant Mr. Ntabo opposed the oral application for stay stating this application arose out of a Certificate of Costs that was taxed by consent way back in November of 2024. That the Respondents did not file any Reference to that application. Further, that an application for review filed by them was dismissed on 16th March 2026. That the bill was taxed more than one and a half years ago and the Respondents have never paid anything and so this is simply an attempt to deny the Applicant the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of his Judgment once again and so he prays that the court rejects it. 9. In her rejoinder, Ms. Ayeira stated that they did not settle any fees because litigation was still ongoing and so in the interest of justice, she prays that the stay be issued to enable the respondent to arrange on how the payment is to be made. 10. I have considered the application dated 12th May, 2025 and the representations made for and against the same and in the circumstances that it is not opposed and I now hereby allow the same in its entirety as follows: - 11. **That Judgment is now hereby entered in favor of the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs. 148,613/= being certified costs due to the applicant as against the Respondent.** 12. **That interest does accrue on the sum of Kshs. 148,613/= at the rate of 14% per annum, with effect from date of filing until payment shall be made in full, as prescribed in paragraph 7 of the Advocates Remuneration order.** 13. **That costs of this application totaling to Kshs. 50,000/= is awarded to the Advocates/Applicant and be borne by the Respondent.** 14. **That an order of stay of execution is not merited and the same is therefore denied.** **Read Dated and Signed at BUNGOMA on 13th day of May, 2026** **E. OMINDE** **JUDGE**