https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12703

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIAMBU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.E151 OF 2025 OMBUNA ONGERI & CO. ADVOCATES ………ADVOCATE/APPLICANT TRIDENT INSUREANCE CO. LTD ……….............CLIENT/RESPONDENT VERSUS JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 1. The matter falling for determination before this Court is the Advocate/Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2025. The application is expressed to be brought under the provisions of Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Order 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Through the said application, the Advocate/Applicant seeks the following orders: i) That this Honourable court be pleased to enter judgement in favour of the applicant herein, in terms of the ruling delivered in 23rd October 2025 in the sum of Kshs.75,668/=. ii) That subject to prayer a. above this honourable court be pleased to issue a decree above for the Kshs.75,668/= HCC MISC.NO.E151 OF 2025 JUDGMENT - Page 1 of 6 plus interest at the rate of 14% p.a from 26th October 2025 until payment in full. iii) That the cost of the application be in the cause. 2. The application is premised on the grounds appearing on its face and is supported by the affidavit of Robert Ongeri sworn on 9th December 2025. The deponent avers that the Advocate/Applicant lodged an Advocate - Client Bill of Costs dated 23rd June 2025, which was duly served upon the Respondent on 8th August 2025. The Bill of Costs was subsequently taxed at Kshs.75,668/= whereupon a Certificate of Taxation was issued on 3rd December 2025. It is further deponed that, despite having been duly notified of the taxation, the Respondent has failed, neglected and/or refused to settle the taxed costs. The deponent further avers that the Certificate of Taxation has neither been challenged nor set aside, and that there exists no dispute whatsoever as to the retainer. 3. The Firm of KK & Associates Law filed a Notice of Appointment of Advocates on 12th February 2026, the Notice having been dated 10th February 2026. The Court notes, however, that the Respondent neither filed a Replying Affidavit nor Grounds of Opposition and, consequently, did not controvert the factual depositions contained in support of the application. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 4. I have carefully considered the Notice of Motion, the grounds upon which it is founded, the Supporting Affidavit together with the HCC MISC.NO.E151 OF 2025 JUDGMENT - Page 2 of 6 annexures thereto, and the entire record of the Court. Although the Respondent entered appearance, it neither filed a replying affidavit nor grounds of opposition to controvert the application. Consequently, the application stands substantially unopposed. Nevertheless, it remains incumbent upon this Court to satisfy itself that the Applicant has established a proper legal basis for the reliefs sought. 5. From the pleadings and the material placed before the Court, the sole issue falling for determination is whether the Advocate/Applicant has satisfied the conditions prescribed under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act so as to warrant the entry of Judgment in terms of the Certificate of Taxation. 6. The legal foundation for the recovery of taxed advocate-client costs is to be found in Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Cap. 16 Laws of Kenya, which provides 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.” 7. The import of the foregoing provision is that a Certificate of Taxation constitutes conclusive proof of the quantum of costs certified therein unless and until it is set aside or altered by the Court. Accordingly, HCC MISC.NO.E151 OF 2025 JUDGMENT - Page 3 of 6 where there is no dispute as to the retainer and the Certificate of Taxation remains unchallenged, the Court is vested with jurisdiction to enter judgment for the certified sum without requiring the advocate to institute a separate suit for recovery. 8. This position has received consistent judicial affirmation. In Musyoka & Wambua Advocates –vs- Rustam Hira Advocates [2006] eKLR, the Court aptly observed that: "Section 51 of the Act makes general provisions as to taxation, as the marginal note indicates. One of the provisions is that the Court has discretion to enter Judgment on a Certificate of Taxation which has not been set aside or altered or where there is no dispute as to retainer. This, in my view, is a mode of recovery of taxed costs provided for by law in addition to filing suit..." 9. Similarly, in Lubulellah & Associates Advocates –vs- N. K. Brothers Limited [2014] eKLR, the Court reiterated as follows: “The law is very clear that once a Taxing Master has taxed the costs, issued a Certificate of Costs and there is no reference against his ruling or there has been a ruling and a determination made and not set aside and/or altered, no other action would be required from the Court save to enter Judgment. An Applicant is not required to file suit for the recovery of costs. The Certificate of Costs is final as to the amounts of the costs..." 10. Applying the foregoing principles to the present application, the record HCC MISC.NO.E151 OF 2025 JUDGMENT - Page 4 of 6 shows that the Advocate/Applicant filed an Advocate - Client Bill of Costs dated 23rd June 2025, which was subsequently taxed by the Taxing Officer and ruling delivered on 23rd October, 2025. Following the taxation, a Certificate of Taxation was issued on 3rd December 2025 certifying the costs due from the Respondent. The Applicant avers, and the record confirms, that despite demand and notification of the taxation, the Respondent has failed to satisfy the certified costs. 11. More significantly, there is nothing on the record to demonstrate that the Respondent has challenged the taxation by way of a reference under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order or otherwise sought to have the Certificate of Taxation set aside, varied or stayed. Equally, no dispute has been raised regarding the existence of the advocate-client relationship or the retainer. In the absence of any such challenge, the Certificate of Taxation remains final and binding as to the amount certified. 12. In the premises, this Court is satisfied that the statutory conditions stipulated under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act have been fully met. The Advocate/Applicant has therefore established a proper basis for the entry of judgment in accordance with the Certificate of Taxation. 13. Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2025 is merited and is hereby allowed on the following terms i. That Judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs. 75,668/=. HCC MISC.NO.E151 OF 2025 JUDGMENT - Page 5 of 6 ii. A Decree for the sum of Kshs.75,668 plus interest at the rate of 14% p.a from 26th October, 2025 until payment in full. iii. That the Respondent do pay costs to the Applicant the costs of this application in the sum of Kshs.15,000/=. Orders accordingly. File closed accordingly. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT KIAMBU ON THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026. ______________________________ BAHATI MWAMUYE JUDGE In the Presence Of: Counsel for the Applicant - Counsel for the Respondent - Court Assistant - HCC MISC.NO.E151 OF 2025 JUDGMENT - Page 6 of 6