https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11457

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION** **HCCOMM MISC APP NO. E735 OF 2025** **IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES ACT** **-AND-** **IN THE MATTER OF TAXATION OF COSTS BETWEEN ADVOCATE & CLIENT** **-BETWEEN-** **WACHIRA & MUMBI ADVOCATES…..…………….…APPLICANT** **-VERSUS-** **GRUPO ALAMARE - ALTIUS BINOO** **ENERGY, S.R.L…...…………………………..…...…...RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The applicant filed a Notice of Motion application dated 22nd April 2026 pursuant to the provisions of Article 159 (2)(c) of the Constitution of Kenya, Sections 1A,1B, 3 & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 51 of the Advocates Act and all enabling provisions of the law, seeking orders that the Court adopts the Certificate of Taxation dated 24th October 2025 as an order of the Court for purposes of execution and to enter judgment against the respondent in the sum of Kshs.124,142.62/-, being the amount taxed and allowed by the Deputy Registrar on the applicant's Bill of Costs. The applicant further prayed for interest on the taxed sum at Court rates from the date of taxation until payment in full. 2. The application was premised on the grounds on the face of the motion and supported by an affidavit sworn on 23rd April 2026 by Kimani Wachira, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and the Managing Partner in the applicant’s law firm. 3. Mr. Wachira averred that the applicant was instructed by the respondent to provide legal services relating to the negotiation, coordination, due diligence, purchase, and international shipment of organic fertilizer and pest control products. Following the successful provision of those services and the respondent's failure to pay the legal fees, the applicant filed an Advocate - Client Bill of Costs dated 2nd July 2025. 4. Mr. Wachira deposed that the Bill was taxed by the Deputy Registrar, Hon. Stella Sagwe, on 24th October 2025 at Kshs.124,142.62/-, and a Certificate of Taxation was subsequently issued on 26th February 2026. He stated that more than thirty days have elapsed since the issuance of the Certificate without the respondent filing either a reference or an appeal to challenge the taxation. He further stated that despite repeated demands for payment, the respondent has failed or refused to settle the certified sum, thereby occasioning financial prejudice to the Applicant. 5. Upon perusal of the Court record and the Case Tracking System, it is manifest that although the respondent was duly served with the pleadings herein, it neither filed a response nor tendered written submissions in opposition thereto. 6. Upon consideration of the instant application, the grounds on its face and the affidavit in support thereof, the issue that arises for determination is whether the Court should enter judgment for the applicant in terms of the Certificate of Taxation dated 24th October 2025, together with interest. 7. The Court’s jurisdiction to enter judgment where an Advocate - Client Bill of Costs has been taxed, a Certificate of Costs has been issued by the Taxing Officer, and the retainer is not in dispute is derived from the provisions of section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, which states 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.”*** 1. In the case of ***Kalonzo Musyoka & Paul M. Wambua (Practicing As Musyoka & Wambua, Advocates) v Rustam Hira (Practicing as Rustam Hira, Advocate) [2006] KEHC 3078 (KLR),*** *the* Court in addressing the import of the provisions of section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act held that – ***“Sub-section (2) of section 51 of the Advocates Act gives the court the discretion to make such order in relation to a certificate of taxation that has not been set aside or altered as the court 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.”*** 1. The record shows that the applicant rendered legal services to the respondent relating to the negotiation, coordination, due diligence, purchase and international shipment of organic fertilizer and pest control products. The respondent neither entered appearance nor filed any response disputing the existence of an advocate-client relationship or denying having instructed the applicant. The Court record equally discloses no challenge as to any retainer. Accordingly, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Court is satisfied that the retainer is not disputed within the meaning of section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. 2. It is equally evident from the record that the applicant's Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 2nd July 2025 was taxed by the Deputy Registrar, Hon. Stella Sagwe, on 24th October 2025 in the sum of Kshs.124,142.62/-. Thereafter, a Certificate of Taxation was issued on 26th February 2026 certifying the said amount as due from the respondent to the applicant. 3. Upon a further examination of the Court record, it is clear that no reference challenging the aforesaid taxation under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order has been filed. Similarly, there is no application seeking to set aside, review or vary the Certificate of Taxation. Consequently, the Certificate of Taxation remains valid, binding and conclusive as to the amount payable under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. Having found that the retainer is not disputed and the Certificate has neither been set aside nor altered, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has established the statutory basis for entry of judgment in the certified sum. 4. The applicant also prayed for interest on the taxed costs. Interest on Advocates Costs is provided for under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, which states 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.”*** 1. The import of Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order is that interest on an Advocate's fees can only be charged after the lapse of one month from when the bill was delivered to the client, and the claim for interest should have been raised before the amount of the bill is paid or tendered in full. 2. The Court of Appeal in ***Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority [2021] KECA 587 (KLR)*** affirmed that interest under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order is not automatic. The Court of Appeal emphasized that where an advocate seeks interest under Rule 7, compliance with the requirements of that Rule must be demonstrated. In the absence of such compliance, the Court may instead exercise its discretion under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act in relation to post-judgment interest. 3. On perusal of the application herein, this Court notes that although the applicant has sought interest from the date of taxation until payment in full, no evidence has been placed before the Court demonstrating when the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs was delivered upon the respondent for purposes of Rule 7 or that a demand for interest at fourteen per cent per annum was made in compliance with that Rule. In the premise, the Court is unable to award interest under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. 4. Nevertheless, once judgment is entered under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the certified costs assume the character of a judgment debt. The Court is therefore empowered under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act to award interest on that judgment debt at Court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full. Such an award ensures that the successful advocate is compensated for the continued deprivation of the fruits of the judgment while remaining consistent with the statutory framework governing post-judgment interest. 5. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds merit in the application. In the premise, the Court makes the following orders – 6. ***The Certificate of Taxation dated 24th October 2025 is hereby adopted as a judgment of this Court;*** 7. ***Judgment is entered for the applicant against the respondent in the sum of Kshs.124,142.62/-;*** 8. ***The said sum shall attract interest at Court rates from the date of this judgment until payment in full; and*** 9. ***Each party to bear its own costs.*** 10. Orders accordingly. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026** **………………………………………………..** **W.N. MOLONKO** **JUDGE** ***Delivered Virtually in the presence of-*** *Ndungú h/b for the Applicant.* *N/A for the Respondent.* *Susan Nzioka - CA*