V Chokaa & Company Advocates v Smart Coach Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E084 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4147 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Ruling)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI** **ELC MISC APPLICATION NO. E084 OF 2025** **IN THE MATTER OF: THE ADVOCATES ACT** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF: THE TAXATION COSTS BETWEEN ADVOCATES & CLIENT** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF NAIROBI ELC E118 OF 2023** **BETWEEN** **V. CHOKAA & CO. ADVOCATES ……………………..………….. APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **SMART COACH LIMITED …………………………………… 1ST RESPONDENT** **DANIEL WAKABA MACHARIA …………………………… 2ND RESPONDENT** **JUDITH NGENE MUSYOKA ………………………………. 3RD RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. By a Notice of Motion dated 8th December 2025, brought under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, Order 36 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, the Applicant seeks the following orders: 1. ***That judgment be entered for the Applicant as against the*** ***Respondent in the sum of Kshs. 1,347,259.40/= in accordance*** ***with the Certificate of Taxation of Costs filed with the Plaint.*** * 1. ***That the Respondent to pay the Applicant the said sum together with interest therein at 14% per annum with effect from 4th April 2025 until payment in full.*** 2. ***That the cost of the application be paid for by the Respondent***. 1. The application is based on the grounds appearing on its face together with the supporting affidavit of Dr Vincent Chokaa, sworn on even date. **THE APPLICANT’S CASE** 1. The deponent stated that the Respondent instructed his firm to carry out legal work, for which professional fees were incurred but remained unpaid. He further stated that when the Respondent failed to settle the fee notes, the firm was compelled to file a Bill of Costs for taxation before the Deputy Registrar, which was taxed at Kshs. 1,347,259.40/-. 2. He asserted that a demand for the payment of the specified sum was made upon the Respondent, who refused or neglected to settle it. He stated that the Certificate of Taxation has neither been set aside nor varied. In conclusion, he urged the Court to allow the application as prayed. **THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE** 1. The 3rd Respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn on 16th January 2026 in opposition to the application. The deponent averred that she made payments amounting to Kshs. 150,000/- to the Applicant's firm via M-Pesa through her telephone number. 1. She further averred that despite the payments made, the Applicant neither issued a receipt nor acknowledged receipt of the amounts paid. She prayed that the sum of Kshs. 150,000/- be deducted from the amount assessed by the Deputy Registrar. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 1. Having considered the application and the respective affidavits, the only issue for determination is whether judgment should be entered in favour of the Applicant for the amount certified by the Deputy Registrar upon taxation, and whether the payments alleged by the 3rd Respondent should be taken into account. 2. **Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act** provides as follows: 1. ***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.”*** 3. In the case of **Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N.K. Brothers Limited [2014] eKLR,** where the court held that: ***“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.”*** 1. It is trite law that a Certificate of Taxation issued by a taxing officer constitutes conclusive evidence of the amount due and payable unless it is set aside or varied by the court upon application by an aggrieved party. In the matter at hand, the Bill of Costs filed by the Applicant was duly taxed by the Deputy Registrar of this court on 5th November 2025, and a Certificate of Taxation was issued for the sum of Kshs. 1,347,259.40/-. The Applicant asserts that the said Certificate has neither been set aside nor varied, and that the amount certified therein remains unpaid. 2. The 3rd Respondent's argument is that a total of Kshs. 150,000/= was transferred to the Applicant's firm via M-Pesa, and this amount should be deducted from the taxed amount. In this regard, the 3rd Respondent produced M-Pesa transaction records reflecting payments made to one Vincent Choka on 11th October 2023, 26th October 2023, and 1st February 2025, amounting in aggregate to Kshs. 150,000/=. 3. It is not in dispute that an advocate-client relationship existed between the Applicant and the 3rd Respondent at the material time. The Applicant has not presented any evidence to challenge these payments or their connection to the retainer agreement between the parties. This court is satisfied that the payment of Kshs. 150,000/= was duly made to the Applicant, and that this sum should be deducted from the taxed amount. 1. On the issue of interest, I have considered the provisions of **Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order,** which provides: - ***“An Advocate may charge interest at 14% 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, providing such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full”*** 1. In the case of **Kerongo & Company Advocates vs Africa Assurance Merchant Co. Ltd (2019) eKLR,** the Court held that: - ***“An Advocate who does not provide proof that he had raised the issue of interest before the amount in the Bill of Costs has been paid or tendered in full will not be paid the interest chargeable under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration.*** 1. There is no evidence that the Certificate has been set aside, altered or challenged by way of reference. The upshot of the foregoing is that the application dated 8th December 2025 is merited and is hereby allowed: * 1. ***Judgment is entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs. 1,197,259.40/=.*** 2. ***The Advocate/Applicant is awarded costs of the application***. **RULING SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.** **…………………………………….** **HON. T. MURIGI** **JUDGE** **IN THE PRESENCE OF:** The absence of the parties Vena- Court assistant