1. The Applicant moved this Court by a Notice of Motion dated 18th June 2026 brought under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and all other enabling provisions of the law. The application is supported by the affidavit of Duke O. Omwenga sworn on the same date.
2. The Applicant seeks judgment for KES. 490,467, being the aggregate amount in Certificates of Costs issued in Nyamira HC Misc. Civil Applications Nos. E072, E073 and E074 of 2025, together with interest, a decree and costs.
3. When the application came up for hearing on 23rd July 2026, Ms. Langat for the Respondent informed the Court that the application was not opposed but prayed for a stay of execution for thirty (30) days.
4. I have carefully considered the application, the supporting affidavit and the documents annexed thereto. The Applicant seeks, in a single application, to obtain judgment on three Certificates of Costs issued in Nyamira HCCCMISC E072, E073 and E074 of 2025. Although the Applicant also prays that the three matters be consolidated, each certificate arose from a separate Advocate–Client Bill of Costs filed, taxed and determined in its own miscellaneous cause. Each certificate therefore remains a distinct decree capable of enforcement only within the proceedings from which it emanated.
5. The Certificates of Costs exhibited by the Applicant show that the Deputy Registrar taxed the Advocate–Client Bills at KES 158,123, KES 178,571 and KES 153,773 respectively, making an aggregate of KES 490,467. Ordinarily, each certificate constitutes a proper basis upon which the Advocate may seek judgment under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act in the file in which it was issued.
6. The difficulty, however, lies in the procedure adopted by the Applicant. The jurisdiction conferred by section 51(2) of the Advocates Act is exercised with reference to the particular certificate issued in a specific taxation cause. While consolidation may in appropriate cases facilitate the hearing of matters involving common questions of law or fact, it cannot be employed to merge three independent Certificates of Costs into a single composite judgment. To do so would effectively extinguish the separate identity of the respective taxation proceedings without any legal basis.
7. In the circumstances, I find that the prayer for consolidation is not available for the purpose for which it is sought. Consequently, the Applicant cannot obtain a single judgment founded upon three separate Certificates of Costs issued in three distinct miscellaneous applications.
8. The Notice of Motion dated 18th June 2026 is accordingly struck out. The Applicant shall be at liberty to file separate applications under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act in Nyamira HCCMISC E072, E073 and E074 of 2025 respectively, should it be minded to do so.
9. As the Respondent did not oppose the application, I direct that each party shall bear its own costs.
2. The Applicant seeks judgment for KES. 490,467, being the aggregate amount in Certificates of Costs issued in Nyamira HC Misc. Civil Applications Nos. E072, E073 and E074 of 2025, together with interest, a decree and costs.
3. When the application came up for hearing on 23rd July 2026, Ms. Langat for the Respondent informed the Court that the application was not opposed but prayed for a stay of execution for thirty (30) days.
4. I have carefully considered the application, the supporting affidavit and the documents annexed thereto. The Applicant seeks, in a single application, to obtain judgment on three Certificates of Costs issued in Nyamira HCCCMISC E072, E073 and E074 of 2025. Although the Applicant also prays that the three matters be consolidated, each certificate arose from a separate Advocate–Client Bill of Costs filed, taxed and determined in its own miscellaneous cause. Each certificate therefore remains a distinct decree capable of enforcement only within the proceedings from which it emanated.
5. The Certificates of Costs exhibited by the Applicant show that the Deputy Registrar taxed the Advocate–Client Bills at KES 158,123, KES 178,571 and KES 153,773 respectively, making an aggregate of KES 490,467. Ordinarily, each certificate constitutes a proper basis upon which the Advocate may seek judgment under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act in the file in which it was issued.
6. The difficulty, however, lies in the procedure adopted by the Applicant. The jurisdiction conferred by section 51(2) of the Advocates Act is exercised with reference to the particular certificate issued in a specific taxation cause. While consolidation may in appropriate cases facilitate the hearing of matters involving common questions of law or fact, it cannot be employed to merge three independent Certificates of Costs into a single composite judgment. To do so would effectively extinguish the separate identity of the respective taxation proceedings without any legal basis.
7. In the circumstances, I find that the prayer for consolidation is not available for the purpose for which it is sought. Consequently, the Applicant cannot obtain a single judgment founded upon three separate Certificates of Costs issued in three distinct miscellaneous applications.
8. The Notice of Motion dated 18th June 2026 is accordingly struck out. The Applicant shall be at liberty to file separate applications under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act in Nyamira HCCMISC E072, E073 and E074 of 2025 respectively, should it be minded to do so.
9. As the Respondent did not oppose the application, I direct that each party shall bear its own costs.