[1] Before the Court for determination is the Notice of Motion dated 6 th March 2026. The application was filed by the respondent/applicant, Geoffrey Amiani Jesumei pursuant to Sections 1A, 1B, & 3A of the Civil Procedure Rules as well as Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Chapter 16 of the Laws of Kenya , for orders that:
[a] Judgment be entered in favour of the applicant against the respondents in the sum of Kshs. 115,600/= only, being the amount awarded as costs by the Court on 20 th August 2025.
[b] That the Court be pleased to order that the Order for costs taxed on 20 th August 2025 and issued on 17 th September 2025 be deemed to be the Decree of this Court for the sum due and ordered and found to be due to the applicant as against the appellants/respondents.
[c] That interest does accrue on the costs at the rate of 14% per annum with effect from 5 th June 2024 when the appeal was dismissed with costs until payment in full.
[d] That the costs of the application be granted to the applicant.
[2] That application was predicated on the grounds that the respondents filed this appeal against the judgment passed in Kapsabet Civil Suit No. 141 and 142 of 2019 ; and that on the 5 th June 2022, the Court dismissed the appeal with costs. The applicant thereafter filed his Bill of Costs for taxation, which Bill was taxed at Kshs. 115,600/= on 20 th September 2025 and a Certificate of Costs issued dated 17 th September 2025. The applicant averred that the said Certificate of Costs has never been challenged or set aside. He further averred that, although the Certificate of Costs has been brought to the attention of the respondents, they have never paid the costs due as certified by the Court.
[3] The applicant relied on his Supporting Affidavit sworn on 6 th March 2026 to which he annexed copies of the Judgment delivered herein as well as the Certificate of Costs. He concluded by averring that it is in the interest of justice that his application be allowed and the orders prayed for granted.
[4] A perusal of the court record confirms that this appeal was determined by the Judgment dated 14 th May 2024. The appeal was disallowed it its entirety with costs. Thereupon the applicant’s costs were taxed and a Certificate of Taxation issued on 17 th September 2025 in the sum of Kshs. 115,600/= pursuant to Order 21 Rule 9(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
[5] Needless to point out that the taxation procedure as provided for in the Advocates Act, Chapter 16 of the Laws of Kenya and the Advocates (Remuneration) Order is a special procedure intended for the expeditious resolution of disputes arising between advocates and their clients over the quantum of fees payable. Hence in Donholm Rahisi Stores (firm) v EA Portland Cement Ltd [2005] eKLR Hon. Waweru, J. held:
“Taxation of costs whether those costs be between party and party or between advocate and client is a special jurisdiction reserved to the taxing officer by the Advocates Remuneration Order. The court will not be drawn into the arena of taxation except by way of reference (from a decision on taxation) made under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
[6] The procedure is resorted to following disagreement and non-payment; and therefore it is only logical that upon taxation, the advocate be in a position to recover the costs as taxed.
[7] The court record shows that the application is unopposed as no response was filed by the respondent. The documents annexed to the Supporting Affidavit confirm that indeed the applicant’s costs have been taxed and a Certificate of Taxation issued in the sum of Kshs. 115,840/=. The applicant averred, and that averment is uncontroverted, that the Ruling on Taxation has not been appealed, reviewed or set aside; and that the respondent has failed, refused and/or neglected to settled the taxed costs despite demand.
[8] It is noteworthy however that the subject Certificate of Costs is not in respect of Advocate/Client Bill of Costs. The question to pose, therefore, is whether there ought to be a separate judgment on costs yet judgment for the payment of costs was passed upon dismissal of the appeal. The applicant did not draw my attention to any relevant provision of the law or authority on point save for Section 51 of the Advocates Act. To my mind, that provision envisages situations involving Advocate and Client for which a separate miscellaneous application would typically be filed for purposes of execution. The provision states:
Every application for an order for the taxation of an advocate’s bill or for the delivery of such a bill and the delivering up of any deeds, documents and papers by an advocate shall be made in the matter of that advocate .
(2) 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.
[9] In this instance, once costs were taxed and certified, the proper procedure would have been for the applicant to seek the issuance of a decree or order encompassing the dismissal and the certified costs. Indeed, Order 21 Rule 9(1) provides that:
Where the amount of costs has been—
(a) agreed between the parties;
(b) fixed by the judge or magistrate before the decree is drawn;
(c) certified by the registrar; or
(d) taxed by the court,
the amount of costs may be stated in the decree or order.
[10] The decree or order is then executed without further ado as provided for in Order 22 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Accordingly, in respect of the Notice of Motion dated 6 th March 2026, it is hereby ordered that:
[a] An Order for the payment of costs to the applicant as certified be and is hereby issued for execution against the respondents in the sum of Kshs. 115,600/= only, being the amount awarded as costs by the Court on 20 th August 2025.
[b] That the Order be deemed to be the Decree of this Court for the sum due to the respondent/applicant as against the appellants/respondents on the basis of the Certificate of Costs issued herein on 17 th September 2025.
[c] That interest does accrue on the costs at the rate of 14% per annum with effect from 20 th August 2025 when the costs were ascertained by way of taxation until payment in full.
[d] That the costs of the application be and are hereby granted to the applicant.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KAPSABET THIS 15 TH DAY OF JUNE 2026
_
[a] Judgment be entered in favour of the applicant against the respondents in the sum of Kshs. 115,600/= only, being the amount awarded as costs by the Court on 20 th August 2025.
[b] That the Court be pleased to order that the Order for costs taxed on 20 th August 2025 and issued on 17 th September 2025 be deemed to be the Decree of this Court for the sum due and ordered and found to be due to the applicant as against the appellants/respondents.
[c] That interest does accrue on the costs at the rate of 14% per annum with effect from 5 th June 2024 when the appeal was dismissed with costs until payment in full.
[d] That the costs of the application be granted to the applicant.
[2] That application was predicated on the grounds that the respondents filed this appeal against the judgment passed in Kapsabet Civil Suit No. 141 and 142 of 2019 ; and that on the 5 th June 2022, the Court dismissed the appeal with costs. The applicant thereafter filed his Bill of Costs for taxation, which Bill was taxed at Kshs. 115,600/= on 20 th September 2025 and a Certificate of Costs issued dated 17 th September 2025. The applicant averred that the said Certificate of Costs has never been challenged or set aside. He further averred that, although the Certificate of Costs has been brought to the attention of the respondents, they have never paid the costs due as certified by the Court.
[3] The applicant relied on his Supporting Affidavit sworn on 6 th March 2026 to which he annexed copies of the Judgment delivered herein as well as the Certificate of Costs. He concluded by averring that it is in the interest of justice that his application be allowed and the orders prayed for granted.
[4] A perusal of the court record confirms that this appeal was determined by the Judgment dated 14 th May 2024. The appeal was disallowed it its entirety with costs. Thereupon the applicant’s costs were taxed and a Certificate of Taxation issued on 17 th September 2025 in the sum of Kshs. 115,600/= pursuant to Order 21 Rule 9(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
[5] Needless to point out that the taxation procedure as provided for in the Advocates Act, Chapter 16 of the Laws of Kenya and the Advocates (Remuneration) Order is a special procedure intended for the expeditious resolution of disputes arising between advocates and their clients over the quantum of fees payable. Hence in Donholm Rahisi Stores (firm) v EA Portland Cement Ltd [2005] eKLR Hon. Waweru, J. held:
“Taxation of costs whether those costs be between party and party or between advocate and client is a special jurisdiction reserved to the taxing officer by the Advocates Remuneration Order. The court will not be drawn into the arena of taxation except by way of reference (from a decision on taxation) made under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
[6] The procedure is resorted to following disagreement and non-payment; and therefore it is only logical that upon taxation, the advocate be in a position to recover the costs as taxed.
[7] The court record shows that the application is unopposed as no response was filed by the respondent. The documents annexed to the Supporting Affidavit confirm that indeed the applicant’s costs have been taxed and a Certificate of Taxation issued in the sum of Kshs. 115,840/=. The applicant averred, and that averment is uncontroverted, that the Ruling on Taxation has not been appealed, reviewed or set aside; and that the respondent has failed, refused and/or neglected to settled the taxed costs despite demand.
[8] It is noteworthy however that the subject Certificate of Costs is not in respect of Advocate/Client Bill of Costs. The question to pose, therefore, is whether there ought to be a separate judgment on costs yet judgment for the payment of costs was passed upon dismissal of the appeal. The applicant did not draw my attention to any relevant provision of the law or authority on point save for Section 51 of the Advocates Act. To my mind, that provision envisages situations involving Advocate and Client for which a separate miscellaneous application would typically be filed for purposes of execution. The provision states:
Every application for an order for the taxation of an advocate’s bill or for the delivery of such a bill and the delivering up of any deeds, documents and papers by an advocate shall be made in the matter of that advocate .
(2) 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.
[9] In this instance, once costs were taxed and certified, the proper procedure would have been for the applicant to seek the issuance of a decree or order encompassing the dismissal and the certified costs. Indeed, Order 21 Rule 9(1) provides that:
Where the amount of costs has been—
(a) agreed between the parties;
(b) fixed by the judge or magistrate before the decree is drawn;
(c) certified by the registrar; or
(d) taxed by the court,
the amount of costs may be stated in the decree or order.
[10] The decree or order is then executed without further ado as provided for in Order 22 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Accordingly, in respect of the Notice of Motion dated 6 th March 2026, it is hereby ordered that:
[a] An Order for the payment of costs to the applicant as certified be and is hereby issued for execution against the respondents in the sum of Kshs. 115,600/= only, being the amount awarded as costs by the Court on 20 th August 2025.
[b] That the Order be deemed to be the Decree of this Court for the sum due to the respondent/applicant as against the appellants/respondents on the basis of the Certificate of Costs issued herein on 17 th September 2025.
[c] That interest does accrue on the costs at the rate of 14% per annum with effect from 20 th August 2025 when the costs were ascertained by way of taxation until payment in full.
[d] That the costs of the application be and are hereby granted to the applicant.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KAPSABET THIS 15 TH DAY OF JUNE 2026
_