JUDGMENT
1. The advocate/ applicant filed the notice of motion dated 16.1.2026 seeking entry of judgment in its favour against the client/ respondent for Kshs. 1,639,367.00/- in accordance with the certificate of costs dated 18.2.2021 together with interest from the date of the taxation ruling.
2. The application is made under section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act. It is supported by the grounds set out in its body and the affidavit sworn by Anthony Burugu on 16.1.2026.
3. The grounds are that the Advocate- Client bill of costs dated 19.8.2019 against the respondent was taxed at Kshs. 1,639,367.00/- on 18.2.2021 and a certificate of costs issued by the Deputy Registrar.
Analysis and Determination
4. The issue for determination is whether the application is merited.
5. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act provides 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 recovered thereby; and the court may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including where the retainer is not disputed, an order that judgment be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.”
6. In accordance with the law, the certificate of the taxing officer has not been set aside or altered by the court, thus, final as to the amount of the costs recoverable, thereby, judgment should be entered accordingly. Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N K Brothers Limited [2014] eKLR,
7. The application was served upon the client’s advocate, Paul Elkington, via email on 21.1.2026. However, the client did not file any response to the application.
8. Thus, I find that the prayer seeking entry of judgment in terms of the certificate of costs is merited.
Of interest
9. The applicant sought interest from the date of the taxation ruling.
10. Para. 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides 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”
11. The applicant filed an affidavit of service sworn on 14.10.2019 to evince that the bill of costs dated 23.8.2019 was served upon the respondent’s advocate on 27.8.2019.
12. The taxing officer’s ruling is dated 18.2.2021. Due to the inordinate period that has lapsed since the ruling was issued, the award of interest from interest from the ruling date as sought would contravene the principle that the fees/costs paid to an advocate should be reasonable. Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot and Company Advocates [2024] KESC 44 (KLR)
13. Thus, I find that it is appropriate in these circumstances to award the applicant interest at 14% from the date of judgment.
Disposal
14. In conclusion, the application dated 16.1.2026 is allowed in the following terms: -
(1) Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant against the respondent for Kshs. 1,639,367.00/- in accordance with the certificate of costs dated 18.2.2021 together with interest from the date of entry of the judgment until payment in full.
(2) Costs of the taxation proceedings are awarded to the applicant.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi through Microsoft Teams online application this 30th day of July 2026
--------------
F. Gikonyo M
Judge
In the presence of: -
Burugu for Applicant
No appearance by Respondent
CA- Ivan/Aggrey
1. The advocate/ applicant filed the notice of motion dated 16.1.2026 seeking entry of judgment in its favour against the client/ respondent for Kshs. 1,639,367.00/- in accordance with the certificate of costs dated 18.2.2021 together with interest from the date of the taxation ruling.
2. The application is made under section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act. It is supported by the grounds set out in its body and the affidavit sworn by Anthony Burugu on 16.1.2026.
3. The grounds are that the Advocate- Client bill of costs dated 19.8.2019 against the respondent was taxed at Kshs. 1,639,367.00/- on 18.2.2021 and a certificate of costs issued by the Deputy Registrar.
Analysis and Determination
4. The issue for determination is whether the application is merited.
5. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act provides 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 recovered thereby; and the court may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including where the retainer is not disputed, an order that judgment be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.”
6. In accordance with the law, the certificate of the taxing officer has not been set aside or altered by the court, thus, final as to the amount of the costs recoverable, thereby, judgment should be entered accordingly. Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N K Brothers Limited [2014] eKLR,
7. The application was served upon the client’s advocate, Paul Elkington, via email on 21.1.2026. However, the client did not file any response to the application.
8. Thus, I find that the prayer seeking entry of judgment in terms of the certificate of costs is merited.
Of interest
9. The applicant sought interest from the date of the taxation ruling.
10. Para. 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides 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”
11. The applicant filed an affidavit of service sworn on 14.10.2019 to evince that the bill of costs dated 23.8.2019 was served upon the respondent’s advocate on 27.8.2019.
12. The taxing officer’s ruling is dated 18.2.2021. Due to the inordinate period that has lapsed since the ruling was issued, the award of interest from interest from the ruling date as sought would contravene the principle that the fees/costs paid to an advocate should be reasonable. Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot and Company Advocates [2024] KESC 44 (KLR)
13. Thus, I find that it is appropriate in these circumstances to award the applicant interest at 14% from the date of judgment.
Disposal
14. In conclusion, the application dated 16.1.2026 is allowed in the following terms: -
(1) Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant against the respondent for Kshs. 1,639,367.00/- in accordance with the certificate of costs dated 18.2.2021 together with interest from the date of entry of the judgment until payment in full.
(2) Costs of the taxation proceedings are awarded to the applicant.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi through Microsoft Teams online application this 30th day of July 2026
--------------
F. Gikonyo M
Judge
In the presence of: -
Burugu for Applicant
No appearance by Respondent
CA- Ivan/Aggrey