https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10375

Waiganjo Wachira & Company Advocates v Matata (Civil Miscellaneous Application E093 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10375 (KLR) (10 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10375 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Makueni Civil Miscellaneous Application E093 of 2025 JN Onyiego, J July 10, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES ACT CAP.16 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF TAXATION OF THE BILL OF COSTS Between Waiganjo Wachira & Company Advocates Applicant and Josephat Mutua Matata Respondent Judgment 1.Vide a Notice of Motion dated 13th day of March 2026 filed pursuant to Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Order 51(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Applicant sought for orders:-a.That Judgment be entered in favour of the Applicant against the Client /Respondent, in the sum of Kshs. 179,684 together with interest thereon at 14% per annum from 28th October 2025 until full payment and in terms of the Certificate of Taxation signed by Hon. F.C. Ngetich on 28-10-2025.b.That costs of this taxation proceedings and application against the Respondent be granted. 2.The application is anchored on the particulars set out on its face and averments contained in the affidavit in support in which it was averred that on the instruction of the Respondent, the Applicant acted for him in Kilungu Civil Case No. E312 of 2023. That upon conclusion of the proceedings, the Respondent declined and or refused to pay the necessary legal fees. As a consequence, the Applicant lodged an Advocates’ Client Bill of Costs which was taxed at Kshs. 179,684. A Certificate of Taxation was subsequently issued on 13-1-2025. 3.Having failed to honour the said payment, the Applicant moved to this court for entry of judgment against the Respondent to facilitate execution process. 4.I have considered the application herein which is not opposed. The only issue for determination is whether the orders sought can issue. 5.It is trite that once a Taxing Master has taxed the Bill of Costs, issued a Certificate of Costs and there is no reference filed against his ruling, no other action would be required from the court save to enter judgment. The Certificate of Costs is final as to the amount of the costs and the court would be quite in order to enter judgment in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent. [See HC Misc 486 of 2012 E.W. Njeru & Co Advocates vs Zakhem Construction (K) Limited (2013) KECH3376(KLR). 6.This position is based on the provisions of Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act Cap 16 (Laws of Kenya) and Section 48 (3) of the Advocates Act which provides as follows: -“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a bill of costs between an advocate and a client may be taxed notwithstanding that no suit for recovery of costs had been filed.” 7.Similarly, in Lubulellah &Associates Advocates v N K Limited Brothers (2014)e KLR the Court held that; once a Taxing Master has taxed the Bill of Costs and issued a Certificate of Costs and there is no reference against its ruling, no other action would be expected from the court save to enter judgment. 8.In the instant case, the Respondent has not challenged the application. In any event, no reference against the Certificate of Costs has been filed. In the absence of a reference or an order setting aside the Taxation Order, this court can not interfere with the Taxation Certificate issued directing payment of the amount due. 9.Noting that the Respondent did not file a reference, the Applicants thus ought to enjoy the fruits of their labour. 10.Further, the Applicant sought interest as plainly provided for under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act which empowers this court to make any order that it deems fit. Entry of judgment and award of interest at court rates is within the ambit of what this court can do. The Applicant has claimed for interest on the taxed amount which is Kshs.179, 684/=-. Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides as follows: -“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, provided that such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill shall have been paid or tendered in full.” 11.Additionally, in the case of HC Misc No 486 and 487 of 2012 E.W. Njeru & Co Advocates (Supra), it can be easily gleaned that if an advocate files his Bill of Costs without raising the issue of interest, then he forfeits interest as provided for under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The court can only award the interest at court rates. In this case, the same was properly raised and therefore awarded. 12.Accordingly, I am inclined to find that the application herein is merited and the same is hereby allowed as prayed with costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY 2026.…………………….…J. N. ONYIEGOJUDGE