'1. This ruling relates to the Notice of Motion dated the 8th August, 2025. It is brought under Sections 1A, 1B, & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 51 of the Advocates’ Act and Order 51 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and all other enabling provisions of the law. It is premised on the grounds on it’s face and supported by the annexed affidavit sworn by Dennis Maina, on even date.
2. Through the application, the applicant has sought the following Orders;
1) That this Honourable Court do enter Judgment an issue a decree for the Applicant, for the sum of Kenya Shillings Seven Million, Seven Hundred and Sixty Thousand and one and Fifteen Cents (Kshs.7,760,001.15/-) only as it appears on the ruling dated 12th February 2025 with interest from the date of filing this application until payment in full.
2) THAT costs of this application be provided for.
3. It is the applicant’s case that it was retained by the respondents to represent them in the High court Anti-Corruption and Economic Case No. 6 of 2020 as detailed in the Advocate/Client Bill of costs dated the 20th September, 2024.
4. That the Bill was taxed by the Taxing Master on the 12th February, 2025 and allowed the sum of Ksh. Seven Million, Seven Hundred and Sixty Thousand and one and Fifteen Cents (7,760,001.15/=). The Respondents were dissatisfied with the ruling of the Taxing Master and they filed a reference application No. E007 of 2025 dated the 28th February, 2025 which was heard and dismissed vide the ruling of this court dated the 20th June, 2025.
5. That following the ruling by this court, the applicant sought and obtained a Certificate of Taxation dated the 29th July, 2025, but the applicant cannot enforce the payments of the costs unless the Certificate of Taxation is adopted as the judgement of this court.
6. The respondents filed a replying affidavit sworn by Catherine Wanjiku Njeri, on 9th October, 2025. She has admitted the fact that the Bill of costs was taxed at Ksh.7,760,001.15/= but avers that they had previously paid the applicant a total of Ksh. Two Million Nine Hundred and Ten Thousand (Ksh.2,910,000/= which amount was paid to the applicant from 2nd April, 2019 to 21st September, 2020.
7. That the applicant has never disputed that it did receive the said amount. She prays that the amount be setoff from the amount owed by the applicant.
8. The application was disposed of by way of written submissions.
Applicant’s Submissions
9. It is the applicant’s submissions that the respondents are only seeking to derail the court process and waste time for all the parties as she is well aware that the amount of Ksh.2,910,000 was already factored in and/or deducted by the Taxing Master in her ruling.
10. That following the Ruling by the Taxing Master, the respondents filed a reference and the same was heard and dismissed by Justice Musyoki J, for lack of merits.
Respondents’ Submissions
11. It is the respondents’ submission that the taxation of Advocate’s instruction fees is to seek no more and no less than reasonable compensation for professional work done and that the advocate’s instruction fees should avoid any prospects of unjust enrichment for any particular party or parties. That the advocate’s fees must be commensurate to the work. Reliance was placed on the case of Moronge & company Advocates Vs Kenya Airports Authority (2014) eKLR and that of Republic Vs The Minister of Agriculture Ex Parte W’Njuguna and Others (2006) EA 359.
12. The respondents have submitted that they paid Ksh.2,900,000/= for the legal services provided to them and that the same is evidenced through bank statement. That the applicant has not disputed that it received the said amount neither have they provided any evidence to counter the said amounts. They have prayed that the same be set off from the taxed amount.
Analysis and Determination
13. The court has considered the application and the materials before it. The only issue for determination is whether judgement should be entered for the applicant against the respondents for Ksh.7,760,001.15/=.
14. From the supporting and the replying affidavits, both parties are in agreement that the Bill of costs 20th September, 2024 was taxed at Ksh.7,760, 001.15/=, but the respondents contend that they had paid a total of Ksh.2,910,000 to the applicant as legal fees which was not taken into account and that the amount should be offset from the amount owed to the applicant.
15. I have taken the liberty of perusing the ruling to the Bill of costs dated the 30th September, 2024. The Taxing Master taxed the Bill at a total of Ksh.10,670,040.86/= and deducted the sum of Ksh.2,910,001.15/=, which the respondents had already paid to the applicant leaving a balance of Ksh.7,760,000.15/= and this is the amount that the applicant is claiming.
16. In the premises, the application is hereby allowed with costs to the applicant.
17. It is so ordered.
Signed, dated and delivered virtually on this 26th day of November, 2025
..................................
L.M. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mr. Maina for the Advocate/applicant
No appearance for the Respondent
Court Assistant - Adan
'
2. Through the application, the applicant has sought the following Orders;
1) That this Honourable Court do enter Judgment an issue a decree for the Applicant, for the sum of Kenya Shillings Seven Million, Seven Hundred and Sixty Thousand and one and Fifteen Cents (Kshs.7,760,001.15/-) only as it appears on the ruling dated 12th February 2025 with interest from the date of filing this application until payment in full.
2) THAT costs of this application be provided for.
3. It is the applicant’s case that it was retained by the respondents to represent them in the High court Anti-Corruption and Economic Case No. 6 of 2020 as detailed in the Advocate/Client Bill of costs dated the 20th September, 2024.
4. That the Bill was taxed by the Taxing Master on the 12th February, 2025 and allowed the sum of Ksh. Seven Million, Seven Hundred and Sixty Thousand and one and Fifteen Cents (7,760,001.15/=). The Respondents were dissatisfied with the ruling of the Taxing Master and they filed a reference application No. E007 of 2025 dated the 28th February, 2025 which was heard and dismissed vide the ruling of this court dated the 20th June, 2025.
5. That following the ruling by this court, the applicant sought and obtained a Certificate of Taxation dated the 29th July, 2025, but the applicant cannot enforce the payments of the costs unless the Certificate of Taxation is adopted as the judgement of this court.
6. The respondents filed a replying affidavit sworn by Catherine Wanjiku Njeri, on 9th October, 2025. She has admitted the fact that the Bill of costs was taxed at Ksh.7,760,001.15/= but avers that they had previously paid the applicant a total of Ksh. Two Million Nine Hundred and Ten Thousand (Ksh.2,910,000/= which amount was paid to the applicant from 2nd April, 2019 to 21st September, 2020.
7. That the applicant has never disputed that it did receive the said amount. She prays that the amount be setoff from the amount owed by the applicant.
8. The application was disposed of by way of written submissions.
Applicant’s Submissions
9. It is the applicant’s submissions that the respondents are only seeking to derail the court process and waste time for all the parties as she is well aware that the amount of Ksh.2,910,000 was already factored in and/or deducted by the Taxing Master in her ruling.
10. That following the Ruling by the Taxing Master, the respondents filed a reference and the same was heard and dismissed by Justice Musyoki J, for lack of merits.
Respondents’ Submissions
11. It is the respondents’ submission that the taxation of Advocate’s instruction fees is to seek no more and no less than reasonable compensation for professional work done and that the advocate’s instruction fees should avoid any prospects of unjust enrichment for any particular party or parties. That the advocate’s fees must be commensurate to the work. Reliance was placed on the case of Moronge & company Advocates Vs Kenya Airports Authority (2014) eKLR and that of Republic Vs The Minister of Agriculture Ex Parte W’Njuguna and Others (2006) EA 359.
12. The respondents have submitted that they paid Ksh.2,900,000/= for the legal services provided to them and that the same is evidenced through bank statement. That the applicant has not disputed that it received the said amount neither have they provided any evidence to counter the said amounts. They have prayed that the same be set off from the taxed amount.
Analysis and Determination
13. The court has considered the application and the materials before it. The only issue for determination is whether judgement should be entered for the applicant against the respondents for Ksh.7,760,001.15/=.
14. From the supporting and the replying affidavits, both parties are in agreement that the Bill of costs 20th September, 2024 was taxed at Ksh.7,760, 001.15/=, but the respondents contend that they had paid a total of Ksh.2,910,000 to the applicant as legal fees which was not taken into account and that the amount should be offset from the amount owed to the applicant.
15. I have taken the liberty of perusing the ruling to the Bill of costs dated the 30th September, 2024. The Taxing Master taxed the Bill at a total of Ksh.10,670,040.86/= and deducted the sum of Ksh.2,910,001.15/=, which the respondents had already paid to the applicant leaving a balance of Ksh.7,760,000.15/= and this is the amount that the applicant is claiming.
16. In the premises, the application is hereby allowed with costs to the applicant.
17. It is so ordered.
Signed, dated and delivered virtually on this 26th day of November, 2025
..................................
L.M. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mr. Maina for the Advocate/applicant
No appearance for the Respondent
Court Assistant - Adan
'