Introduction
1. This Ruling determines the Notice of Motion application dated 10th January 2025 in which the Advocate is seeking the adoption of the Certificate of Taxation dated 7th October 2024 converted into a Judgment and Decree of this Court. The taxation arose from the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 8th August 2023.
2. The Application is based on the grounds on the face of the motion and is further supported by the affidavit of AARON JAMES KINYANJUI, Advocate, sworn on even date.
3. In his affidavit, the Advocate depones that his firm offered professional legal services to the Respondent in the Milimani CMCC No. 11545 of 2021 – Farah Azhar versus Hardev Kalsi Singh, in which the firm, at the Client’s instructions, successfully defended the Respondent against a claim for “permanent injunction orders restraining him, his proxies, agents or any other persons purporting to act under him from trespassing, entering or doing business in that godown in L.R. No. 209/4931/21 located in Gikomba within Nairobi County.”
4. The Advocate further deponed that the firm consequently filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 8th August 2023, which was on 17th May 2024 taxed at Kenya Shillings Seven Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty-Nine Only (Kshs. 747,489.00/) and a Certificate of Taxation dated 7th October 2024 issued in that regard.
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 Reference has been filed against the Taxing Officer’s Ruling of 17th May 2024.
6. The Application was canvassed by way of written submissions. While the Advocate/Applicant filed submissions dated 21st May 2025, the Respondent did not file any submissions.
Analysis and Determination
7. The Advocate 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. In the case of Amondi & Co Advocates v County Government of Kisumu [2021] eKLR, the Court held as follows:
“In my considered opinion, when the provisions of the Advocates Act specify how interest may be awarded on the disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, it must be deemed that the said provisions oust the more general provisions of the Civil Procedure Act. I so hold because it is a cardinal rule of interpretation that when a statute specifies something as being applicable to matters which the statute applies, the said specification ousts other more generalized statutory provisions. I hold that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act cannot oust the more specific provisions of the Advocates Act which were enacted to address the issues of Advocates’ costs. It therefore follows that under the Advocates Act, the Court does not have discretion to award any rate of interest, even if the Court deems such a rate as reasonable in the circumstances. Whilst Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act authorizes the Court to award any reasonable rate of interest; the Advocates Act specifies the rate as 14% per annum. And whilst under the Civil Procedure Act the Court has discretion to award interest at 3 different levels, the Court lacks such discretion under the Advocates Act. Under the Advocates Act, the interest may be awarded from the expiration of one month from the date when the Bill was delivered by the Advocate to the Client. When the discretion of the Court has already been so constrained, I hold the considered view that it would be unjust to the Advocate to either withhold interest altogether or to reduce it on account of the consideration that the Client was a public entity. However, the Advocate is not entitled to interest from the date when he filed the Bill of Costs in Court. I so hold because the quantum sought in the Bill of Costs was much more than the sum which the learned Taxing Officer finally awarded. In my considered view, the Client became aware of the “Bill” on the date when the Ruling on Taxation was delivered Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order appears to have been designed to allow a client a period of 30 days from the date when the Advocate delivered his bill. In my considered opinion, justice would be served by allowing the Client 30 days from the date when the Ruling on Taxation was delivered. Accordingly, I order that Judgment be entered in favour of the Advocate/Applicant for the taxed costs, together with interest thereon at 14% per annum, from the expiration of 30 days from the date when the Ruling was delivered.”
11. Having carefully considered the Applicant's written submissions, it is clear that the Certificate of Costs that the Taxing Officer issued 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 from the record 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 on the Certificate of Costs.
Disposition
14. The upshot of this court’s decision is that the Advocate’s Notice of Motion application dated 10th January 2025 is merited and the same is hereby allowed in the following terms: -
i. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Advocate as against the Respondent in the sum of KES 747,489.00 in terms of the Certificate of Taxation dated 7 October 2024 with interest thereon at 14% per annum, from the expiration of 30 days from the date when the Ruling on the Certificate of Costs was delivered, 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
29TH DAY OF MAY 2025
ADO MOSES
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
C/A – Moses
Ms. Ndihio.………...for Advocate/Applicant
N/A….……...for Respondent
1. This Ruling determines the Notice of Motion application dated 10th January 2025 in which the Advocate is seeking the adoption of the Certificate of Taxation dated 7th October 2024 converted into a Judgment and Decree of this Court. The taxation arose from the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 8th August 2023.
2. The Application is based on the grounds on the face of the motion and is further supported by the affidavit of AARON JAMES KINYANJUI, Advocate, sworn on even date.
3. In his affidavit, the Advocate depones that his firm offered professional legal services to the Respondent in the Milimani CMCC No. 11545 of 2021 – Farah Azhar versus Hardev Kalsi Singh, in which the firm, at the Client’s instructions, successfully defended the Respondent against a claim for “permanent injunction orders restraining him, his proxies, agents or any other persons purporting to act under him from trespassing, entering or doing business in that godown in L.R. No. 209/4931/21 located in Gikomba within Nairobi County.”
4. The Advocate further deponed that the firm consequently filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 8th August 2023, which was on 17th May 2024 taxed at Kenya Shillings Seven Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty-Nine Only (Kshs. 747,489.00/) and a Certificate of Taxation dated 7th October 2024 issued in that regard.
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 Reference has been filed against the Taxing Officer’s Ruling of 17th May 2024.
6. The Application was canvassed by way of written submissions. While the Advocate/Applicant filed submissions dated 21st May 2025, the Respondent did not file any submissions.
Analysis and Determination
7. The Advocate 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. In the case of Amondi & Co Advocates v County Government of Kisumu [2021] eKLR, the Court held as follows:
“In my considered opinion, when the provisions of the Advocates Act specify how interest may be awarded on the disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, it must be deemed that the said provisions oust the more general provisions of the Civil Procedure Act. I so hold because it is a cardinal rule of interpretation that when a statute specifies something as being applicable to matters which the statute applies, the said specification ousts other more generalized statutory provisions. I hold that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act cannot oust the more specific provisions of the Advocates Act which were enacted to address the issues of Advocates’ costs. It therefore follows that under the Advocates Act, the Court does not have discretion to award any rate of interest, even if the Court deems such a rate as reasonable in the circumstances. Whilst Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act authorizes the Court to award any reasonable rate of interest; the Advocates Act specifies the rate as 14% per annum. And whilst under the Civil Procedure Act the Court has discretion to award interest at 3 different levels, the Court lacks such discretion under the Advocates Act. Under the Advocates Act, the interest may be awarded from the expiration of one month from the date when the Bill was delivered by the Advocate to the Client. When the discretion of the Court has already been so constrained, I hold the considered view that it would be unjust to the Advocate to either withhold interest altogether or to reduce it on account of the consideration that the Client was a public entity. However, the Advocate is not entitled to interest from the date when he filed the Bill of Costs in Court. I so hold because the quantum sought in the Bill of Costs was much more than the sum which the learned Taxing Officer finally awarded. In my considered view, the Client became aware of the “Bill” on the date when the Ruling on Taxation was delivered Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order appears to have been designed to allow a client a period of 30 days from the date when the Advocate delivered his bill. In my considered opinion, justice would be served by allowing the Client 30 days from the date when the Ruling on Taxation was delivered. Accordingly, I order that Judgment be entered in favour of the Advocate/Applicant for the taxed costs, together with interest thereon at 14% per annum, from the expiration of 30 days from the date when the Ruling was delivered.”
11. Having carefully considered the Applicant's written submissions, it is clear that the Certificate of Costs that the Taxing Officer issued 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 from the record 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 on the Certificate of Costs.
Disposition
14. The upshot of this court’s decision is that the Advocate’s Notice of Motion application dated 10th January 2025 is merited and the same is hereby allowed in the following terms: -
i. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Advocate as against the Respondent in the sum of KES 747,489.00 in terms of the Certificate of Taxation dated 7 October 2024 with interest thereon at 14% per annum, from the expiration of 30 days from the date when the Ruling on the Certificate of Costs was delivered, 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
29TH DAY OF MAY 2025
ADO MOSES
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
C/A – Moses
Ms. Ndihio.………...for Advocate/Applicant
N/A….……...for Respondent