https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4369

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MOMBASA** **ELCL MISC E018 OF 2024** **OJODE & ODOTO ADVOCATES………………..……………….APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF TAITA TAVETA……………..RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** 1. This is a judgment on a motion by an advocate seeking to convert a certificate of taxation in respect of advocate–client costs into a formal judgment of the court, and to secure interest and costs on that sum. It raises the recurring question of when, and on what terms, a certificate of taxation may be translated into a judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. 2. By a Notice of Motion dated **12 March 2026** brought under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Cap 16, Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and all other enabling provisions of the law, the applicant seeks: a. *THAT judgment be entered for the taxed advocate-client costs of Kshs 522,448/= contained in the certificate of taxation dated 24th day of September 2024 with interest thereon at the rate off 14% per annum with effect from 13th November 2023 until payment in full.* 3. *THAT costs of the application herein be awarded to the applicant.* 4. The application is supported by the affidavit of **Johnson O. Udoto**, Advocate, sworn on **12 March 2026.** The respondent was served with the application on 19 March 2026 and a return of service filed on the same date. No response is on record on the case tracking system todate. 5. Having considered the application, the single issue for determination is whether this court should enter judgment on the taxed advocate–client costs and, if so, on what terms as to interest. 6. **Section 51(2)** of the Advocates Act provides that: *“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.”* 1. Jurisprudence under Section 51(2) has crystallised a *trilogy of conditions* for entry of judgment on a certificate of taxation: (i) the advocate’s bill of costs has been taxed and a certificate issued; (ii) the certificate has not been set aside or altered, and no reference is pending; and (iii) there is no dispute as to retainer. Once this trilogy of conditions is satisfied, the certificate is final as to quantum and the court is empowered to enter judgment for the sum certified, without the need for a substantive suit unless some other justiciable issue remains to be tried. This policy of finality in taxation reflects a broader judicial commitment to certainty and efficiency in the recovery of costs, sparing parties and the court the burden of re-litigating matters that have already been quantified by the taxing officer. 2. In this matter, the advocate’s bill of costs was taxed by the taxing officer on **14 August 2024 at Kshs 522,448.00**, and a certificate of taxation issued on **24 September 2024.** The certificate was served upon the respondent on **27 September 2024.** *No reference has been filed challenging the taxation, the certificate has not been set aside or altered, and there is no dispute on retainer.* The trilogy of conditions under Section 51(2) is therefore fully met. 3. Courts have consistently held in such circumstances that the statutory mechanism obviates the need for a fresh suit and the court’s role is essentially to adopt the certificate as judgment. That position, articulated in ***Musyoka & Wambua Advocates v Rustam Hira Advocate (2006) eKLR,*** has been reaffirmed in later decisions, including ***Ahmednasir Abdikadir & Co. Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Ltd*** and ***Kenyariri & Associates Advocates v Salama Beach Hotel Ltd,*** which underscore the finality of an uncontested certificate of costs and the court’s duty to translate it into judgment. 4. On the strength of the uncontested certificate of taxation, and there being no pending challenge to it, this court finds no reason to withhold judgment for the amount certified. 5. The remaining issue concerns **interest**. The applicant seeks interest at 14% per annum from **13 November 2023** until payment in full, invoking **Rule 7** of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. That rule permits an advocate to charge interest at 14% per annum on disbursements and costs from one month after delivery of the bill to the client, provided the claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full. 6. The advocate–client bill of costs in this matter is dated **18 April 2024**. The applicant served the respondent with the bill **on 13 May 2024**, as evidenced by the affidavit of service dated **14 May 2024**. However, the bill of costs is silent on any claim for interest at **14%** per annum, and the ruling of the taxing master delivered on **14 August 2024** does not address or award interest at **14%** per annum or at court rates. The claim for **14%** interest appears for the first time in the motion seeking judgment on the certificate. 7. The jurisprudence on Rule 7 draws a clear distinction between statutory interest under that rule and interest at court rates. The entitlement to 14% interest is contingent on the advocate having raised the claim in the bill and on the other conditions specified in the rule being satisfied. Decisions such as ***Machira & Co. Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu & Another [2015] KEHC 8233 (KLR)*** and more recent rulings on advocate–client taxation have held that where the bill does not plead Rule 7 interest, the statutory entitlement is not available, although the court may still award interest at court rates on the judgment sum in the exercise of its discretion. 8. Guided by that distinction, and in view of the omission of the 14% claim in the bill and in the taxation ruling, this court finds that the applicant has not satisfied the conditions for the grant of interest at 14% per annum under Rule 7. The applicant, however, remains entitled to interest at court rates on the taxed sum once judgment is entered under Section 51(2). 9. The appropriate commencement date for interest at court rates **is 30 days from service of the bill**, that being one month after delivery to the client as contemplated by Rule 7. In this case, the bill was served on **13 May 2024**; interest at court rates will therefore run from **13 June 2024** until payment in full. 10. On costs, **Section 27** of the Civil Procedure Act embodies the general principle that costs follow the event. This is a straightforward, unopposed application in which the applicant has succeeded, and no exceptional circumstances have been shown to justify a departure from the general rule. The applicant is accordingly entitled to the costs of the application. 11. In the result, the Notice of Motion dated 12 March 2026 is allowed in the following terms: 12. ***Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant against the respondent for Kshs 522,448 in accordance with the Certificate of Taxation dated 24 September 2024.*** 13. ***Interest on the taxed costs shall be at court rates from 13 June 2024 until payment in full.*** 14. ***The applicant shall have the costs of this application.*** Orders accordingly. Ruling dated, signed at Mombasa and delivered virtually via Microsoft Teams on this 9th day of July 2026. ……………………………… **B. A. AKELLO, OGW JUDGE** **In the presence of:**Gillian – Court Assistant Lukorito h/b Udoto for the applicant ……………… for the respondent