[2025] KEHC 3524 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's bill of costs had been taxed and certified by the Deputy Registrar at Ksh. 334,194, and that there was no evidence of any challenge by the respondent to the taxation or to the retainer. The court held that, pursuant to Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and the authority of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 3524 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Sophie Chirchir t/a Cherono Chirchir & Co. Advocates; Respondent: African Merchant Assurance Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed; judgment entered for applicant for taxed costs with interest
- Judges
- DKN Magare
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Judgment on Certificate of Taxation
- 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
Sophie Chirchir t/a Cherono Chirchir & Co. Advocates
Applicant
African Merchant Assurance Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered for the applicant on the basis of a taxed and certified bill of costs.
- 2 Whether interest on the taxed sum should run from the date of the ruling on taxation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's bill of costs had been taxed and certified by the Deputy Registrar at Ksh. 334,194, and that there was no evidence of any challenge by the respondent to the taxation or to the retainer. The court held that, pursuant to Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and the authority of Musyoka & Wambua Advocates v Rustam Hira Advocate, it had discretion to enter judgment for the applicant on the certificate of taxation. The court further held that, as there was no evidence that a certificate of taxation was extracted and served, interest would run from the date of the ruling on taxation. Accordingly, judgment was entered for the applicant for the taxed sum with...
Court Disposition
application allowed; judgment entered for applicant for taxed costs with interest
Orders
- Judgment is entered for the applicant against the respondent for Ksh. 334,194.
- Interest on the sum is awarded effective 30.7.2023.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Sophie Chirchir t/a Cherono Chirchir & Co. Advocates v African Merchant Assurance Co. Ltd (Civil Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2018) [2025] KEHC 3524 (KLR) (19 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 3524 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nyeri
Civil Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2018
DKN Magare, J
March 19, 2025
Between
Sophie Chirchir t/a Cherono Chirchir & Co. Advocates
Applicant
and
African Merchant Assurance Co. Ltd
Respondent
Ruling
1. This is a ruling over a Miscellaneous Application dated 28. 9.2021. The Applicant sought relief that judgment be entered for the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Ksh. 334,194/= being the sum indicated to have been taxed and certified by the Deputy Registrar on 13. 7.2021 as due to the Applicant with interest thereon.
2. The application arose from the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 26. 3.2018. Be it as may, the Court has already assessed costs at a specific figure, that is, Ksh. 334,194/=.
3. The application is expressed to be brought under Section 55 (2) of the Advocates Act. The proper provision should be Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act which provides thus:Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of the Advocates Act -“’Client’ includes any person who, as a principal or on behalf of another, or as a trustee or personal representative, or in any other capacity, has power, express or implied, to retain or employ an advocate and any person who is or may be liable to pay an advocate any costs.”
4. As a fact, after filing of the Notice of Motion dated 28. 9.2021, there does not appear to be active participation of the Respondent. In the case of Musyoka & Wambua Advocates v Rustam Hira Advocate (2006) eKLR it was held: -Section 51 of the Act makes general provisions as to taxation, as the marginal note indicates. One of those provisions is that the court has discretion to enter judgment on a Certificate of Taxation which has not been set aside or altered, where there is no dispute as to retainer. This in my view is a mode of recovery of taxed costs provided by law, in addition to filing of suit...
5. The Applicant has done her part, serving the bill of costs. However, there is no evidence that a certificate of taxation was extracted and served. The interest will thus run from the date of the Ruling on taxation which is 30. 7.2023. The application is allowed.
Determination 6. I therefore make the following orders: -a.Judgment be and is hereby entered for the Applicant against the Respondent for Ksh. 334,194/=.b.Interest thereon is awarded effective 30. 7.2023.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NYERI ON THIS 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025. RULING DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE PLATFORM.KIZITO MAGAREJUDGEIn the presence of: -Ms. Mbaabu for the ApplicantNo appearance for the RespondentCourt Assistant – Michael