1. By Notice of Motion dated 12th November, 2025, which is expressed to be brought under the provisions of section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and Order 51 Rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules the Applicant/Advocate is seeking for the following orders:
a) That judgment be entered against the Respondent, Occidental Insurance Company Limited, and a decree be issued in favour of the Applicant for a sum of Kshs.93,530.80/= in accordance with the Certificate of Taxation dated 26th March 2025.
b) That the costs of the Application be provided for.
2. The Application is based on the grounds on the face of it, the supporting affidavit sworn by Dennis Kyalo and the annexures thereto.
3. The Applicant’s position is that it filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 6th September, 2024, which was taxed by the Taxing Officer on 26th March, 2025. A Certificate of Taxation was subsequently issued in the sum of Kshs.93,530.80/=.
4. The Applicant contends that the Respondent was served with the Bill of Costs and was therefore aware of the taxation proceedings. The Respondent entered appearance and was opposed to some items in the bill of costs.
5. Following taxation, the Respondent was informed of the outcome and called upon to settle the taxed costs. It has neither paid the certified amount nor filed a reference challenging the decision of the Taxing Officer.
6. The record further contains an affidavit of service sworn by Dennis K. Muinduko confirming that the Notice of Motion and the hearing notice were served upon the Respondent through its official legal department email address and the email addresses of several of its legal officers on 22nd May, 2026. A further affidavit confirms service of the mention notice on 1st July, 2026.
7. Though duly served, the Respondent did not file a response or tender submissions in opposition to the Application. The Application therefore proceeded as unopposed. The Court must nevertheless satisfy itself that the Applicant has established the legal basis for the orders sought.
8. In its written submissions dated 22nd June, 2026, the Applicant submitted that the Certificate of Taxation is final and binding under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act because it has neither been set aside nor altered. It relied, among other authorities, on the case of Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N K Brothers Limited [2014] eKLR and Machira & Co. Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu & another[2012]eKLR.
9. The Applicant further submitted that the Respondent has failed to settle the taxed costs despite service and demand. It therefore urged the Court to enter judgment for Kshs.93,530.80/= award interest on the certified amount from the date of taxation until payment in full, and grant it the costs of the Application.
Analysis and Determination
10. I have carefully read the affidavit evidence on record in support of this Application. I have also considered the Applicant’s written submissions, the Certificate of Taxation and the cited authorities. The following issues arise for determination:
i. Whether the requirements for entry of judgment under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act have been satisfied.
ii. What amount is payable under the Certificate of Taxation.
iii. Whether the Applicant is entitled to interest on the certified amount.
iv. Who should bear the costs of the Application.
11. 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’
12. The effect of the above provision is that a certificate which has not been set aside or altered is final as to quantum. The Court may enter judgment summarily where the retainer is not disputed.
13. In Peter Odiwuor Ngoge t/a O. P. Ngoge & Associates v Washington Gachoka & 6 others [2012] KECA 15 (KLR), the court stated
“Her duty in our view, was to look into whether there was a certificate of taxation and whether it was properly drawn and then look into whether retainer was not disputed”.
The Court of Appeal held that the Court considering an Application under section 51(2) is required to ascertain whether there is a Certificate of Taxation, whether it is properly drawn and whether the retainer is disputed. The Court should not reopen matters which ought to have been raised before the Taxing Officer or through a reference.
14. The purpose of section 51(2) was further explained in Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N K Brothers Limited [2014] eKLR. “The law is very clear that once a taxing master has taxed the costs, issued a Certificate of costs and there is no reference against his ruling or there has been a ruling and a determination made and not set aside and/or altered, no other action would be required from the court save to enter judgment.An advocate is not required to file a separate suit for recovery of the certified costs.”
15. In the instant case, the Certificate of Taxation is before Court. There is no evidence that it has been altered or set aside. There is equally no reference challenging the decision of the Taxing Officer. The Respondent has not disputed the taxation. I therefore find that the statutory conditions for entry of judgment under section 51(2) have been met.
16. The Notice of Motion states the amount due as Kshs.93,530.80/=.
This is the same amount contained in the Certificate of Taxation,
17. The jurisdiction of the Court under section 51(2) is to enter judgment for the sum certified to be due. The Certificate is final as to quantum and the decree must correspond with it.
18. On interest, Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides that an advocate may charge interest at fourteen per cent per annum on disbursements and costs from the expiration of one month after delivery of the bill to the client, provided the claim for interest is raised before the bill has been paid or tendered in full.
19. The Applicant, however, asks in its submissions for interest as provided by law from the date of taxation. It does not formulate its prayer as one for fourteen per cent from the expiry of one month after delivery of the Bill. The applicable question is therefore whether the Court should award interest at court rates from the date of taxation.
20. Section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the Court, where a decree is for payment of money, to award interest at such rate and for such period as it considers reasonable. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act likewise empowers the Court to make such order in relation to the Certificate as it thinks fit.
21. In Machira & Co. Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu & another [2019] KECA 867 (KLR),
“In the circumstances, we find that the learned judge erred in awarding interest from the date of her ruling (26th May, 2015) and not the date of taxation (30th July, 2001). We are therefore entitled to interfere with the learned Judge’s discretion.”
The Court of Appeal distinguished interest at fourteen per cent under Rule 7 from the Court’s discretionary power under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act. Although the Court declined the claim for interest at fourteen per cent where the necessary claim had not been established, it held that the advocate was entitled to interest at court rates from the date of taxation.
22. The Court of Appeal stated that sections 26 and 51 empower the Court to award a reasonable rate of interest retrospectively and from a date which is fair and just in the circumstances. It consequently substituted the High Court’s order with an award of interest at court rates from the date of taxation.
23. In the instant case, the Bill was taxed on 26th March, 2025. The certified amount remains unpaid. The Applicant has moved the Court for judgment and expressly sought interest from the date of taxation. The Respondent has placed no material before Court to justify withholding the certified amount. Guided by the binding decision in Machira & Co. Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu & another [2019] KECA 867 (KLR), I find that the Applicant is entitled to interest at court rates from 26th March, 2025 until payment in full.
24. On costs, the Respondent’s failure to satisfy the Certificate necessitated the filing of this Application. Costs ordinarily follow the event and there is no reason to depart from that principle.
25. The upshot is that the Notice of Motion dated 12th November, 2025 is allowed in the following terms:
a. Judgment is hereby entered for the Applicant/Advocate against the Respondent/Client in the sum of Kshs.93,530.80/=
b. A decree shall issue for the sum of Kshs.93,530.80/=.
c. The sum of Kshs.93,530.80/= shall attract interest at court rates from 26th March, 2025 until payment in full.
d. The Applicant shall have the costs of the Application.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 VIRTUALLY, THROUGH THE MICROSOFT TEAMS PLATFORM.
KENNEDY KANDET
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF:
NO APPEARANCE FOR THE PARTIES
COURT ASSISTANT: AGGREY.
a) That judgment be entered against the Respondent, Occidental Insurance Company Limited, and a decree be issued in favour of the Applicant for a sum of Kshs.93,530.80/= in accordance with the Certificate of Taxation dated 26th March 2025.
b) That the costs of the Application be provided for.
2. The Application is based on the grounds on the face of it, the supporting affidavit sworn by Dennis Kyalo and the annexures thereto.
3. The Applicant’s position is that it filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 6th September, 2024, which was taxed by the Taxing Officer on 26th March, 2025. A Certificate of Taxation was subsequently issued in the sum of Kshs.93,530.80/=.
4. The Applicant contends that the Respondent was served with the Bill of Costs and was therefore aware of the taxation proceedings. The Respondent entered appearance and was opposed to some items in the bill of costs.
5. Following taxation, the Respondent was informed of the outcome and called upon to settle the taxed costs. It has neither paid the certified amount nor filed a reference challenging the decision of the Taxing Officer.
6. The record further contains an affidavit of service sworn by Dennis K. Muinduko confirming that the Notice of Motion and the hearing notice were served upon the Respondent through its official legal department email address and the email addresses of several of its legal officers on 22nd May, 2026. A further affidavit confirms service of the mention notice on 1st July, 2026.
7. Though duly served, the Respondent did not file a response or tender submissions in opposition to the Application. The Application therefore proceeded as unopposed. The Court must nevertheless satisfy itself that the Applicant has established the legal basis for the orders sought.
8. In its written submissions dated 22nd June, 2026, the Applicant submitted that the Certificate of Taxation is final and binding under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act because it has neither been set aside nor altered. It relied, among other authorities, on the case of Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N K Brothers Limited [2014] eKLR and Machira & Co. Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu & another[2012]eKLR.
9. The Applicant further submitted that the Respondent has failed to settle the taxed costs despite service and demand. It therefore urged the Court to enter judgment for Kshs.93,530.80/= award interest on the certified amount from the date of taxation until payment in full, and grant it the costs of the Application.
Analysis and Determination
10. I have carefully read the affidavit evidence on record in support of this Application. I have also considered the Applicant’s written submissions, the Certificate of Taxation and the cited authorities. The following issues arise for determination:
i. Whether the requirements for entry of judgment under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act have been satisfied.
ii. What amount is payable under the Certificate of Taxation.
iii. Whether the Applicant is entitled to interest on the certified amount.
iv. Who should bear the costs of the Application.
11. 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’
12. The effect of the above provision is that a certificate which has not been set aside or altered is final as to quantum. The Court may enter judgment summarily where the retainer is not disputed.
13. In Peter Odiwuor Ngoge t/a O. P. Ngoge & Associates v Washington Gachoka & 6 others [2012] KECA 15 (KLR), the court stated
“Her duty in our view, was to look into whether there was a certificate of taxation and whether it was properly drawn and then look into whether retainer was not disputed”.
The Court of Appeal held that the Court considering an Application under section 51(2) is required to ascertain whether there is a Certificate of Taxation, whether it is properly drawn and whether the retainer is disputed. The Court should not reopen matters which ought to have been raised before the Taxing Officer or through a reference.
14. The purpose of section 51(2) was further explained in Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N K Brothers Limited [2014] eKLR. “The law is very clear that once a taxing master has taxed the costs, issued a Certificate of costs and there is no reference against his ruling or there has been a ruling and a determination made and not set aside and/or altered, no other action would be required from the court save to enter judgment.An advocate is not required to file a separate suit for recovery of the certified costs.”
15. In the instant case, the Certificate of Taxation is before Court. There is no evidence that it has been altered or set aside. There is equally no reference challenging the decision of the Taxing Officer. The Respondent has not disputed the taxation. I therefore find that the statutory conditions for entry of judgment under section 51(2) have been met.
16. The Notice of Motion states the amount due as Kshs.93,530.80/=.
This is the same amount contained in the Certificate of Taxation,
17. The jurisdiction of the Court under section 51(2) is to enter judgment for the sum certified to be due. The Certificate is final as to quantum and the decree must correspond with it.
18. On interest, Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides that an advocate may charge interest at fourteen per cent per annum on disbursements and costs from the expiration of one month after delivery of the bill to the client, provided the claim for interest is raised before the bill has been paid or tendered in full.
19. The Applicant, however, asks in its submissions for interest as provided by law from the date of taxation. It does not formulate its prayer as one for fourteen per cent from the expiry of one month after delivery of the Bill. The applicable question is therefore whether the Court should award interest at court rates from the date of taxation.
20. Section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the Court, where a decree is for payment of money, to award interest at such rate and for such period as it considers reasonable. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act likewise empowers the Court to make such order in relation to the Certificate as it thinks fit.
21. In Machira & Co. Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu & another [2019] KECA 867 (KLR),
“In the circumstances, we find that the learned judge erred in awarding interest from the date of her ruling (26th May, 2015) and not the date of taxation (30th July, 2001). We are therefore entitled to interfere with the learned Judge’s discretion.”
The Court of Appeal distinguished interest at fourteen per cent under Rule 7 from the Court’s discretionary power under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act. Although the Court declined the claim for interest at fourteen per cent where the necessary claim had not been established, it held that the advocate was entitled to interest at court rates from the date of taxation.
22. The Court of Appeal stated that sections 26 and 51 empower the Court to award a reasonable rate of interest retrospectively and from a date which is fair and just in the circumstances. It consequently substituted the High Court’s order with an award of interest at court rates from the date of taxation.
23. In the instant case, the Bill was taxed on 26th March, 2025. The certified amount remains unpaid. The Applicant has moved the Court for judgment and expressly sought interest from the date of taxation. The Respondent has placed no material before Court to justify withholding the certified amount. Guided by the binding decision in Machira & Co. Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu & another [2019] KECA 867 (KLR), I find that the Applicant is entitled to interest at court rates from 26th March, 2025 until payment in full.
24. On costs, the Respondent’s failure to satisfy the Certificate necessitated the filing of this Application. Costs ordinarily follow the event and there is no reason to depart from that principle.
25. The upshot is that the Notice of Motion dated 12th November, 2025 is allowed in the following terms:
a. Judgment is hereby entered for the Applicant/Advocate against the Respondent/Client in the sum of Kshs.93,530.80/=
b. A decree shall issue for the sum of Kshs.93,530.80/=.
c. The sum of Kshs.93,530.80/= shall attract interest at court rates from 26th March, 2025 until payment in full.
d. The Applicant shall have the costs of the Application.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 VIRTUALLY, THROUGH THE MICROSOFT TEAMS PLATFORM.
KENNEDY KANDET
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF:
NO APPEARANCE FOR THE PARTIES
COURT ASSISTANT: AGGREY.