kemboy law Advocates VS Narok County Government kemboy law Advocates VS Narok County Government

Introduction
1. This Ruling disposes of the Notice of Motion Application dated 4th November 2024 in which the Advocate is seeking the adoption of the Certificate of Costs dated 4th September 2024 arising out of the taxation converted into a Judgment and Decree of this Court.
2. The Application is based on the grounds on the face of the motion and is also supported by the affidavit of Jepher K. Kere, Advocate, sworn on 4th November 2024.
3. In his affidavit, the Advocate depones that the firm offered professional legal services to the Respondent in the Nairobi HCCOMM Miscellaneous Application No. E608 of 2019 Between Prof. Tom Ojienda & Associates Versus County Government of Narok, in which the Advocate, at the Client’s instructions, defended the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 28th October 2019, arising from the proceedings in Supreme Court Petition No. 3 of 2015; County Council of Narok vs Livingstone Kunini Ntutu and 2 others.
4. It is further deponed that the Advocate consequently filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 4th October 2023, which was on 11th June 2024 taxed at Kenya Shillings Five Million One Hundred and Seventy-Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twenty-Three (Kshs. 5,175,823.00) and a Certificate of Taxation dated 4th September 2024 issued.
5. That it is due to the Respondent’s failure to settle the fees that necessitated the instant application. It is further the Advocate’s position that there is no dispute as to retainer, and that no Referee has been filed against the Taxing Officer’s Ruling of 11th June 2024.
6. The Application was canvassed by way of written submissions. While the Advocate/Applicant filed submissions dated 11th April 2025, the Respondent did not file any submissions.
Analysis and Determination
7. The Advocates relied on the provisions of Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act Cap 16 (Laws of Kenya) which empowers the court to enter judgment on taxed costs in favour of an advocate as against the Client/Respondent. In this regard, they placed reliance on the case of Amuga and Company Advocates v Kisumu Concrete Products Limited [2021] eKLR.
8. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act provides as follows: -
“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. Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order provides that: -
“An advocate may charge interests at 14% per annum on his disbursement and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, such claim for interests is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full.
(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to payment of further interest on such aggregate sum as aforesaid from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the court shall be deemed to have ordered interest at 6 per cent per annum.”

10. Further, Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 (Laws of Kenya) stipulates as follows;
“(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for payment of money, the court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the court may deem reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the suit to the date of the decree in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period before the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable on the aggregate sum so adjudged from the date of the decree to the date of payment or to such earlier date as the court thinks fit.
(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to payment of further interest on such aggregate sum as aforesaid from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the court shall be deemed to have ordered interest at 6 per cent per annum.”
11. Having carefully considered the Applicant's Written Submissions, it is clear that the Certificate of Costs that was issued by the Taxing Officer has not been set aside and/or altered. Indeed, no pending reference under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order challenging the decision of the said Taxing Master has been brought to the attention of the Court.
12. Further, it is also evident that the Client has not opposed the adoption of the taxed costs as a judgment sum.
13. In the premises, I find and hold that pursuant to the provisions of Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act, the Advocate/Applicant herein is entitled to Judgment for that amount.

Disposition
14. The upshot of this court’s decision is that the Advocate’s Notice of Motion application dated 4th November 2024 is merited and the same is hereby allowed in the following terms: -
i. Judgment be and is hereby entered in favor of the Advocate in the sum of Kenya Shillings Five Million One Hundred and Seventy-Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twenty-Three only (Kshs. 5,175,823/=) together with interest thereon at fourteen (14%) per cent per annum calculable after thirty (30) days from the date when the Certificate of Costs was issued, until payment in full.
ii. Costs of this application be awarded to the Advocate and is hereby assessed at Kshs. 20,000/-
iii. File closed

15. It is so ordered.
SIGNED DATED and DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS
24TH DAY OF APRIL 2025

ADO MOSES
JUDGE

In the presence of: -
C/A – Moses
Kere.………...for Applicant
N/A….……...for Respondent