Introduction
1. This Ruling determines the Notice of Motion application dated 23rd January 2025, in which the Advocate is seeking the adoption of the Certificate of Taxation dated 21st January 2025 of Kshs. 1,053,390/= as a Judgment and Decree of this Court.
2. The taxation arose from the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 15th April 2023.
3. The Application is based on the grounds on the face of the motion and is further supported by the affidavit of Mohamed Ali Kassamali Madhani, Advocate, sworn on the same date.
4. In his affidavit, the Advocate depones that his firm offered professional legal services to the Respondent in the Court of Appeal at Nairobi in Civil Appeal No. 256 of 2020 where the Advocate represented the Client in an application seeking stay of execution if the High Court decision pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
5. The Advocate further deponed that the firm consequently filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 15th April 2024, which was taxed on 25th November 2024 in the sum of Kshs. 1,053,390/= and a Certificate of Taxation dated 21st January 2025 issued in that regard.
6. 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 25th November 2024.
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 Lubulellah & Associates Advocates Vs N. K. Brothers Limited (2014) 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.”
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 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 23rd 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 Kshs. 1,053,390.00/ = in terms of the Certificate of Taxation dated 21st January 2025, with interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum, from the expiration of 30 days from the date when the Ruling was delivered (25th November 2024) until payment in full.
ii. Costs of this application be awarded to the Advocate and is hereby assessed at Kshs. 20,000/-
15. It is so ordered.
SIGNED DATED and DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS
24TH DAY OF JULY 2025
ADO MOSES
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
C/A – Moses
N/A.………...for Advocate/Applicant
N/A….……...for Respondent
1. This Ruling determines the Notice of Motion application dated 23rd January 2025, in which the Advocate is seeking the adoption of the Certificate of Taxation dated 21st January 2025 of Kshs. 1,053,390/= as a Judgment and Decree of this Court.
2. The taxation arose from the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 15th April 2023.
3. The Application is based on the grounds on the face of the motion and is further supported by the affidavit of Mohamed Ali Kassamali Madhani, Advocate, sworn on the same date.
4. In his affidavit, the Advocate depones that his firm offered professional legal services to the Respondent in the Court of Appeal at Nairobi in Civil Appeal No. 256 of 2020 where the Advocate represented the Client in an application seeking stay of execution if the High Court decision pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
5. The Advocate further deponed that the firm consequently filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 15th April 2024, which was taxed on 25th November 2024 in the sum of Kshs. 1,053,390/= and a Certificate of Taxation dated 21st January 2025 issued in that regard.
6. 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 25th November 2024.
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 Lubulellah & Associates Advocates Vs N. K. Brothers Limited (2014) 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.”
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 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 23rd 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 Kshs. 1,053,390.00/ = in terms of the Certificate of Taxation dated 21st January 2025, with interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum, from the expiration of 30 days from the date when the Ruling was delivered (25th November 2024) until payment in full.
ii. Costs of this application be awarded to the Advocate and is hereby assessed at Kshs. 20,000/-
15. It is so ordered.
SIGNED DATED and DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS
24TH DAY OF JULY 2025
ADO MOSES
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
C/A – Moses
N/A.………...for Advocate/Applicant
N/A….……...for Respondent