https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7025

Ombuna Ongeri & Company Advocates v Corporate Insurance Company Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Application E151 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7025 (KLR) (14 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7025 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Thika Miscellaneous Civil Application E151 of 2025 FN Muchemi, J May 14, 2026 Between Ombuna Ongeri & Company Advocates Advocate and Corporate Insurance Company Limited Client Ruling Brief Facts 1.The application dated 16th December 2025 seeks for orders of entering judgment in favour of the applicant for Kshs. 179,500/- pursuant to the ruling delivered on 15th December 2025. The applicant further seeks for interest to be provided for at 14% per annum from 16th October 2025 until payment in full. 2.The respondent filed a Replying Affidavit dated 3rd March 2026 in opposition to the application. Applicant’s Case 3.The applicant states that its bill of costs dated 23rd July 2025 has since been taxed at Kshs. 179,500/- and a certificate of taxation issued on 16th December 2025. The applicant avers that interest is payable at 14% per annum from the date of service of notice. 4.The applicant states that the respondent has continually neglected or failed to pay legal fees duly earned despite demands and notices. Furthermore, the certificate of taxation has not been disputed or set aside and neither is there any dispute regarding retainer. The applicant further states that he has demonstrated through evidence that he is entitled to the orders sought. The Respondent’s Case 5.The respondent admits that a Bill of Costs was filed by the applicant but denies that the resulting Certificate of Taxation is final, undisputed or enforceable in the manner alleged. The respondent states that prior to and during taxation, auctioneers acting on instructions levied distress against their property and carried away various household and office goods. As a result, their premises were left in disarray and critical files, documents and paperwork were displaced and rendered inaccessible and thus they were unable to access their records to ascertain the nature of documents and pleadings served. 6.The respondent states that by the time they were able to reorganize their premises and regain access to their paperwork, taxation had already been concluded and a Certificate of Taxation issued. The respondent avers that its failure to participate in the taxation proceedings was neither deliberate nor intended to obstruct the course of justice but was occasioned by circumstances beyond its control. 7.The respondent states that the applicant has failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act to warrant entry of judgment. Further, the certificate of taxation relied upon is irregular, disputed and premature and cannot form a proper basis for entry of judgment. The respondent disputes both the quantum of fees and the alleged date from which the interest is claimed. The respondent further argues that the claim for interest at 14% per annum is unsupported by evidence of a valid fee agreement or proper notice as required by law. 8.The respondent states that it has not admitted the fees as claimed. Further the applicant has not placed before the court any evidence of a valid advocate client agreement capable of attracting interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 16th October 2025. Additionally no proper or lawful notice of intention to charge interest has been demonstrated as required under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. 9.Directions were issued that parties put in written submissions and the applicant elected not to put in written submissions. The Respondent’s Submissions. 10.The respondent relies on the cases of Ahmednasir Abdikadir & Co. Advocates vs National Bank of Kenya Limited (no citation given); Kipkorir Titoo & Kiara Advocates vs Deposit Protection Fund Board (no citation given) and Kiptoon & Co. Advocates vs Kirui (Miscellaneous Application No. E001 of 2020) [2023] KEHC 3523 (KLR) and submits that Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act is not automatic as it only applies where the certificate of taxation is not set aside or altered and is undisputed. The respondent has expressly deponed that an application to set aside the certificate of taxation has been filed. 11.The respondent refers to paragraph 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and submits that the applicant has not produced any fee agreement executed between the parties nor has he exhibited a notice of intention to charge interest as required in law. Thus, in the absence of such foundational documents, the claim for interest is wholly untenable. 12.Relying on the cases of Gulf Fabricators Limited vs Great Lakes University Kisumu (Civil Suit E13 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 16546 (KLR) and Julius Wafula Chebi vs Gibon Akifuma Egap Solutions limited (Cause 1013 of 2013), the respondent submits that failure to participate was neither deliberate nor contumacious and thus it should be afforded an opportunity to ventilate its grievances. The Law Whether the application has merit. 13.The applicant argues that its bill of costs dated 23rd July 2025 was taxed and allowed at Kshs. 179,500/- on 15th December 2025 and a certificate of taxation issued. Thus the applicant prays that judgment be entered for the said sum. The respondent opposes the entry of judgment and argues that it was unable to participate in the taxation proceedings as auctioneers distressed their goods in their offices and therefore they were unable to access or ascertain their documents. 14.I have perused the record and noted that the applicant’s bill of costs dated 23rd July 2025 was taxed and allowed at Kshs. 179,500/-. A certificate of taxation was issued on 16th December 2025. 15.Taxation is a matter that is guided by the Advocates Act and the Advocates Remuneration Order, Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act which 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. 16.The above provision is clear that the certificate of costs once issued by the taxing officer is final unless set aside or altered by the court. The court may also make an order that judgment be entered in terms of the amount in the certificate of costs in the case of an advocate client bill of costs. In the instant case, the respondent states that they were unable to participate in the taxation proceedings as they were in the process of being auctioned rendering access to their documents impossible. On perusal of the record, the bill of costs and notice of taxation was served upon the respondent 16th September 2025. Despite service, the respondent never filed a response to the bill or attended the hearing. Following the taxation, the respondent was served but never filed any reference disputing the taxed costs. It was not until the present application was served that the respondent woke up from slumber. Together with its response to the said application, the respondent filed an application to set aside the certificate of taxation. I have noted that the respondent did not file any application to set aside the taxed costs until 9th March 2026. The delay in filing this application has not been explained. I am not convinced that failure to file a reference was inadvertent and beyond the respondent’s control. The respondent sounds vague in its grounds in the application to set aside and did not provide any specificity as to when the auctioneers visited them and when they put their house in order. The respondent having been duly served, was aware of the bill pending taxation since 16th September 2025. The application to set aside was filed on 9th March 2026, which is about six (6) months after taxation. It is my view that the respondent chose not to participate in the taxation proceedings well aware of the state of affairs. 17.It is my view that the respondent has not demonstrated that the court should exercise its discretion in its favour. The respondent has not denied that it entered into an advocate client relationship with the applicant as the applicant has annexed the instruction letter dated 25th August 2022 from the respondent. It is therefore, my considered view that the taxed costs of Kshs. 179,500/- should be paid to the applicant by the respondent. The interest payable is at court rates at 14% per annum which is provided for in the law. 18.It is thus my considered view that the application dated 16th December 2025 has merit and is hereby allowed in terms of prayers 2 and 3. 19.Consequently, the application dated 3rd March 2026 has no merit and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. 20.It is hereby so ordered. RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT THIKA THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 2026.F. MUCHEMIJUDGE