[2025] KEHC 143 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's bill of costs had been taxed and a certificate of costs issued, which was duly served on the respondent. The respondent neither challenged the certificate by way of reference nor provided any reason why judgment should not be entered. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act empowers...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 143 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Wambua And Maseno Advocates; Respondent: Cortec Solutions Africa Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E630 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed; judgment entered for applicant for taxed costs, interest, and costs of application
- Judges
- RC Rutto
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Certificate of Costs, Judgment Entry, Interest on Costs
- 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
Wambua And Maseno Advocates
Applicant
Cortec Solutions Africa Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judgment should be entered for the applicant in the sum certified in the certificate of costs.
- 2 Whether the respondent has challenged or set aside the certificate of costs.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest and costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's bill of costs had been taxed and a certificate of costs issued, which was duly served on the respondent. The respondent neither challenged the certificate by way of reference nor provided any reason why judgment should not be entered. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act empowers the court to enter judgment on an unchallenged certificate of costs where the retainer is not disputed. The court was satisfied that the respondent was properly served and had not participated in the proceedings. Accordingly, the application was merited, and judgment was entered for the applicant in the sum certified, together with interest and costs.
Court Disposition
application allowed; judgment entered for applicant for taxed costs, interest, and costs of application
Orders
- Judgment is entered in favor of the applicant in the sum of Kshs. 150,000.00 as against the respondent.
- The applicant is awarded interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 9th September 2024 until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Wambua and Maseno Advocates v Cortec Solutions Africa Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E630 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 143 (KLR) (Civ) (17 January 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 143 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Miscellaneous Application E630 of 2023
RC Rutto, J
January 17, 2025
Between
Wambua And Maseno Advocates
Applicant
and
Cortec Solutions Africa Ltd
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant has filed a Notice of Motion dated 9th October 2024. It is hinged on the provisions of section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act, order 51, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and paragraph 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order seeking the following reliefs:a.That judgment in the taxed sum of Kshs. 150,000. 00 (Kenya shillings one hundred and fifty thousand only) be entered against the respondent and a decree be drawn to that effect for execution;b.The applicant be awarded interest calculated at 14% per annum on the ruling of this court delivered in this matter on 9th September 2024;c.That costs of this application be borne by the respondent.
2. The application is supported by the grounds on its face and the supporting affidavit of Anthony Maseno, the managing partner of the applicant firm. The applicant contended that by ruling of the taxing master delivered on 9th September 2024, the applicant’s advocate-client bill of costs dated 18th July 2023 was taxed at Kshs. 150,000. 00. Subsequently, the applicant was issued with a certificate of costs for taxation dated 23rd September 2024. It continued that upon issuance of the certificate, on 25th September 2024 it served the respondent with the same by email and receipt thereof was confirmed, but the respondent has never settled the sum. It added that no reference has been lodged to challenge the said decision. It opined that based on the respondent’s conduct, it does not intent on settle the said sums hence the application. It thus urged this court to allow the application as prayed as it was in the interest of justice.
3. The court is satisfied that the respondent was properly served with the application. To support its application, the applicant attached a copy of the email extract of 25th September 2024 and the response confirming receipt dated 26th September 2024. The service notwithstanding, the respondent elected not to participate to defend the prosecution of this application by not filing or making representation. During the hearing of the application on 14th November 2024, the applicant adopted the application urging this court to allow the same as prayed.
4. Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act provides:“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.”
5. In the ruling dated 9th September 2024, the taxing master taxed the applicant’s advocate-client bill of costs dated 18th July 2023 at Kshs. 150,000. 00. The applicant was issued with a certificate of costs for taxation dated 23rd September 2024. It is instructive to note that the respondent has furnished no responses to persuade this court why the application ought not to be granted. Chiefly, there is no evidence that the said decision has been challenged by way of reference or varied or set aside. Accordingly, I find that the application is merited. Judgment is entered in favor of the applicant in the sum of Kshs. 150,000. 00 as against the respondent. The applicant shall also be awarded costs of this application and interest therein at the rate of 14% from 9th September 2024 until payment in full.It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025RHODA RUTTOJUDGEFor Appellant:For Respondent:Court Assistant: