https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10713

Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates v National Land Commission (Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 10713 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (16 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10713 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Constitutional and Human Rights Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2020 G Mutai, J July 16, 2026 Between Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates Applicant and National Land Commission Respondent Ruling 1.What is before the court is the Notice of Motion dated 21st October 2025, by which the Applicant seeks to have judgment entered against the Respondent in the sum of 221,007,349/-, as stated in the Certificate of Taxation dated 30th September 2025. Further, the Applicant prays that the court do find and hold that interest is payable on the said sum, reckoned from one month after service of the Bill of Costs on the Respondent, i.e. 2nd May 2025, until payment in full, and that the Applicant be allowed to execute. 2.The Respondent does not dispute the amount as assessed by the Taxing Officer of the court. However, in its grounds of opposition dated 7th July 2026, it averred that the prayer for interest in prayer 2 was not warranted, as the advocate failed to issue a 30-day notice of its intention to claim interest, nor was that intention stated in the Amended Bill of Costs dated 21st March 2025. It further contended that the Taxing Officer did not award interest in the ruling dated 29th September 2025. 3.Parties filed written submissions. The Applicant's submissions, filed by the firm of Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates Advocates, are dated 12th June 2026. In those submissions, it was urged that the taxing officer's findings had not been set aside. The Applicant contended that interest was payable in respect of its fee note and that this Court should make a finding to that effect when entering judgment. This was on the basis that the amount in the Bill of Costs had not been paid. 4.On the other hand, the respondents, through the firm of Kipkenda & Co Advocates, filed written submissions dated 7th July 2026 in which they contended that no interest should be payable as the same was not sought in the Bill of Costs nor was it awarded in the ruling. 5.I have considered the submissions referred to above. I note that Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides that:“An advocate may charge interest at 14 per cent per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, provided that such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill shall have been paid or tendered in full.” 6.I have perused the Notice of Motion under consideration. It would appear to me that the issue of interest wasn’t raised in the amended Bill of Costs, nor did the taxing officer make a finding to that effect. In view of this, is the amount payable? 7.It would appear to me that the same is not payable. In the case of Tom Ojienda & Associates v BN Kotecha & Sons Ltd [2026] KEHC 3982 (KLR), it was held by Mabeya, J, that:“It would seem, therefore, that interest of 14% on costs is awardable if it is claimed in the bill of costs or 30 days after service of an itemized fee note. Failing that, the interest would be the normal court rate from the date of assessment of costs.” 8.The Court of Appeal in the case of Otieno, Ragot & Company Avocates v Kenindia Assurance Co Ltd [2023] KECA 1443 (KLR) it was held that:-“I believe that this decision and its companion one in Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 129 of 2018 will remove the cobwebs of confusion reigning in this area. It comes down to a salutary advice for advocates: if one hopes to claim the 14% p.a. interest under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order on a fee note or Bill of Costs, one must make the claim in the fee note and/or Bill of Costs. If the interest is not claimed in the fee note or Bill of Costs, an advocate loses his right to claim for it subsequently. Similarly, if the interest of 14% under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order is not specifically awarded during the taxation proceedings, the advocate must invoke Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and file a reference to protest the omission. The advocate cannot wait to introduce the interest during enforcement proceedings under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act…” 9.The above decision, having been made by the Court of Appeal, binds this court under the doctrine of stare decisis. 10.In the circumstances, I enter judgment in the sum of Kes 221,007,349/- in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondent. 11.The said amount shall be subject to interest at court rates from the date of assessment until payment in full. 12.It is so ordered. DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 16TH DAY OF JULY 2026.GREGORY MUTAIJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms Msando, holding brief for Prof Tom Ojienda, SC for the Applicant;Mr Odoyo, for the Respondent; andMs Lwambia – Court Assistant.