RULING
1. Before the Court are two Applications to be determined together. The 1st Application is a Notice of Motion dated 7th March 2025 in which the Advocate/Applicant sought the following orders;
a) THAT this Honourable court be pleased to enter Judgment in, favor (sic) of the Applicant herein, in terms of the Certificate of Taxation dated the 11th February, 2025 in the sum of Kshs. 1,612,510.
b) THAT subject to prayer 1 above, this Honourable court be pleased to issues a decree above for the Ksh. 1,612,510 plus interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 28th April, 2021 until payment in full.
c) 3. THAT the cost of the Application be provided for.
2. This Application was supported by the Affidavit of Stanley T. Nduati. He stated that the Applicant filed a Bill of Costs dated 28th April 2021 in the above-captioned matter, which has since been taxed. That following the Ruling of the Taxing Master delivered on 18th November 2024, a Certificate of Taxation dated 21st November 2024 was duly extracted and issued. It is contended that an Advocate is legally entitled to fees properly earned in accordance with the Advocates Remuneration Order. That further and notably, the Respondent does not dispute either the fees or the existence of the retainer.
3. The Respondent filed the Replying Affidavit of Mary Wairimu Mugo sworn on 9th May 2025. She stated that the Applicant/Advocate relied on the Bills of Costs to justify unlawfully withholding Kshs. 6,386,630/=. This was from a total sum of Kshs. 19,640,000/- received in trust on behalf of the Client from a conveyancing transaction. The Advocate further failed to render a proper cash account, thereby necessitating the filing of a suit. Although the Bills of Costs were eventually taxed and certificates issued for Kshs. 678,594/= and Kshs. 1,612,510/= respectively, the Advocate has refused to release the balance held. The Advocate neither issued a fee note nor raised any claim for interest in the Bills of Costs, and the Taxing Master did not award interest. Consequently, the claim for interest at 14% per annum is unfounded and an abuse of the Court process.
4. The Client further averred that the Advocate, having received the funds in a fiduciary capacity, cannot lawfully retain sums exceeding the taxed costs or seek interest. This is all while still holding the Client’s money, particularly where the Advocate has admitted to holding Kshs. 4,359,000/=. The continued retention of the fund’s amounts to unjust enrichment, especially as the Advocate has benefited from interest accruing in the client account since 2019. The matter is now subject to proceedings before the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal. It is asserted that no sums are due to the Advocate; instead, the Client is entitled to recover the balance of Kshs. 4,105,526/- unlawfully withheld.
5. The 2nd Application is a Notice of Motion dated 9th May 2025. The Client sought the following orders;
1. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to give directions on the issue of the Client's pending balance of Kshs. 6,386,630/= being unlawfully held by the Advocate.
2. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order directing the Advocate to pay to the Client's account an amount of Kshs. 4,105,526/=, being the balance of the money in the Advocate's custody held in trust for the Client less the taxed costs in Nairobi HCC Misc. No. 18 of 2021 and Nairobi HCC Misc. No. E313 of 2021.
3. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to strike out the Advocate's application dated 7th March 2025 together with the Supporting Affidavit Sworn on 7th March 2025.
4. THAT costs of this Application be in the cause.
6. This Application was supported by the Affidavit of Mary Wairimu Mugo. She stated that the Advocate served the Client with two Bills of Costs dated 28th April 2021 and 10th May 2021 seeking Kshs. 4,155,473.80 and Kshs. 5,581,167/- respectively. That the Advocate relied on the same to justify withholding Kshs. 6,386,630/= from the proceeds of Kshs. 19,640,000/- held in trust for the Client arising from a conveyancing transaction. Upon taxation, the amounts due were determined at KShs. 678,594/= and Kshs. 1,612,510/= respectively, yet the Advocate has declined to release the balance held.
7. It was contended that the Advocate, having received the funds in a fiduciary capacity, is only entitled to deduct what is lawfully due and cannot arbitrarily impose interest not initially claimed, particularly while retaining sums in excess of the taxed amounts. The matter is further the subject of a complaint before the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal. That given the Advocate’s admission to holding Kshs. 4,359,000/=, it is submitted that he cannot seek interest or a decree while still retaining the Client’s funds. Lastly, that it is in the interest of justice that the Court grants the orders sought.
8. In response, the Advocate filed the Replying Affidavit, sworn on 21st May, 2025. He stated that the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs was taxed on 17th June 2022, and a Certificate of Taxation was subsequently issued on 11th February 2025, which has neither been set aside nor altered by the Court. Consequently, the Client’s objection to the procedural application for judgment is misconceived and devoid of any legal or procedural foundation. The Client’s application is therefore misguided, as it seeks to challenge a valid and subsisting Certificate of Taxation that remains binding and enforceable.
9. Further, the application is res judicata within the meaning of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it raises issues that were directly and substantially in issue in Nairobi HCCOMM E589 of 2021, Mary Wairimu Mugo vs. Nduati & Company Advocate, where the same parties litigated and the matters were conclusively determined. The application also offends procedural rules by introducing new issues not canvassed before the Taxing Officer, contrary to Section 51 of the Advocates Act and Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Therefore, the application is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the Court process, given the multiplicity of similar proceedings and complaints previously instituted by the Client. This is including matters before the High Court and the Advocates' Complaints Commission.
10. The Advocate also filed Grounds of Opposition dated 21st May 2025 on the following grounds;
a) The Client's Application is misguided as the Certificate of Taxation issued by the Taxing Officer on 11th February, 2025 has not been set aside or altered by the Court.
b) The Client's Application offends the rules of procedure as it surreptitiously introduces a new cause of action and issues at the judgment cum procedural stage of a taxation proceeding contrary to the provisions of Section 51 of the Advocates Act and Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014.
c) The Client's Application offend the provisions of Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014 as it circumvents the procedural rules with respect to filing of reference in taxation proceedings.
d) The Client's Application is Res judicata and offends the provisions of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act as it raises new issues that were directly and substantially in issue in Nairobi HCCC Misc. App. 18 of 2021 Mary Wairimu Mugo vs. Nduati & Company Advocate, where the parties herein were the same and the issues raised in the Application were raised, heard, and finally decided.
e) The Application is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process as the Client has filed numerous applications and complaints over the same issues, to wit: -
i. Nairobi HCCC Misc. App. 18 of 2021 Nduati & Company Advocates vs. Mary Mugo where the Client is seeking similar remedies;
ii. She has lodged a complaint with the Advocates' Complaint Commission, which complaint has been adjudged to be unmeritorious, and
iii. She is seeking to reinstate, through an application dated 8th May, 2025, HCCOMM E589 of 2021, Mary Wairimu Mugo vs. Nduati & Company Advocate, which application, if allowed, will make the current Application Res judicata.
f) All this duplication of proceedings and complaints in different tribunals is aimed at delaying the hearing of the application for judgment and deny the advocate from realizing his fees plus interest.
Issues for determination
11. Having carefully considered the Applications, the responses therewith, and the written submissions, the following issues are for determination;
a) Whether Judgment should be entered in terms of the Certificate of Taxation dated 11th February, 2025.in the sum of Kshs. 1,612,510.
b) Whether interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 28th April, 2021 should issue on the taxed costs.
c) Whether the Court should direct the Advocate to remit the sum of Kshs. 4,105,526/= to the Client.
Analysis
12. It is undisputed that in the instant case there is no evidence of a reference filed by the Client against the order of the Taxing Officer. This is the procedure provided for challenging the decisions of a Taxing Officer on taxed costs and the Certificates of costs issued, as per the provisions of Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
a) Whether Judgment should be entered in terms of the Certificate of Taxation dated 11th February, 2025.in the sum of Kshs. 1,612,510.
13. It is the Court’s understanding that in a nutshell the Client does not dispute that there exists a Certificate of costs. which the Advocate needs to be adopted as a judgment of the Court. The Client’s complaint is that the Advocate initially asserted a lien over the funds pending taxation of costs; however, the Bills of Costs have since been taxed and certified at Kshs. 1,612,510 in this matter and Kshs. 678,594 in Misc. No. 18 of 2021. Despite this, the Advocate continues to withhold the entire sum of Kshs. 6.3 million, in breach of his fiduciary duties and in contravention of established principles of professional conduct.
14. In the case of Musyoka & Wambua Advocates Vs Rustam Hira Advocate (2006) eKLR held: -
“Section 51 of the Act makes general provisions as to taxation, as the marginal note indicates. One of those provisions is that the court has a discretion to enter judgment on a Certificate of Taxation which has not been set aside or altered, where there is no dispute as to retainer. This in my view, is a mode of recovery of taxed costs provided by law, in addition to filing of suit, ......
In the present case, there is no allegation that the Advocate had no instructions to act in the matter for the client.... so, there is not, and there cannot be, a dispute as to retainer. As it stands now the Certificate of Taxation has not been set aside or altered. It has been submitted that the client has taken steps to challenge the award on instruction fee. If that be the case, what the client should have done was to seek a stay of further proceedings until the challenge to the taxation is disposed off. There is no such application before the court. In the circumstances, I see no reason to deny the Advocate judgment as sought.”
15. The question that vexes this Court is why the Advocate wishes to have a Judgement of this Court to recover funds held in his Client’s Account and over which he has asserted a lien after taxation of costs.
16. It is a matter of the Advocate transferring the funds from the Client’s account and to his office account now that the quantum of costs is known and not disputed.
17. The Court is at a loss why it should enter Judgement on taxed costs where there is no dispute and the Advocate is seized of such funds to cover the costs. The Court declines to make such orders as it finds them superfluous and uncalled for.
b) Whether interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 28th April, 2021 should issue on the taxed costs.
18. On the issue of interest, the Advocate submitted that an Advocate is, per virtue of the provisions of Rule 7, entitled to interest at 14 per cent per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the Client.
19. On the other hand, the Client pointed out that the Advocate did not claim interest in the Bill of Costs dated 27th July, 2021. It is also not in dispute that interest was not awarded in the taxation ruling on the Advocate's Bill of Costs under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
20. Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order states as follows:
An advocate may charge interest at 14 per cent per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, provided that such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill shall have been paid or tendered in full.
21. In Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates v County Government of Nairobi (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E027 of 2020) [2025], the Court observed thus:
“Under the cited Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, to lawfully claim the 14% interest, or any part thereof, on the taxed bill of costs, the advocate must:
a. Serve the itemized bill of costs to the client,
b. Explicitly include a demand for interest at 14% in the bill, and
c. Wait for 30 days to lapse after service before interest begins to accrue.
If the advocate fails to include the interest demand in the bill, then:
a. The Taxing Officer lacks jurisdiction to award that interest during taxation;
and
b. The Court cannot include interest in the certificate of taxation or any resulting judgment adopting the certificate of costs.”
22. From a perusal of the record, there is no evidence that the Applicant ever served the Respondent with any document making a claim for interest. Therefore, in line with Rule 7, the Applicant is found to have failed to furnish proof that it had raised the claim for interest with the Respondent. The Court declines to award interest at the rate of 14% p.a.
23. On the issue of lien, the Court reiterates the holding by Khaminwa J. in JOHN KARUNGAI NYAMU & ANOTHER v MUU & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES [2008] KEHC 3197 (KLR)
“the Advocate has no right under any law to hold monies that which have come to him for onward transmission to his client as lien…”
The Court had earlier stated as follows;
“It is clear from the foregoing that an Advocate’s fees are not due until his Bill of Costs has been served on the client and where it is not settled, until it is taxed by the court. “
24. This Court agrees with the Learned Judge’s holding that the Advocates fee only becomes due after the Bill of Costs has been taxed by the Court. Before the Bill is taxed, there is no telling how much is due to the Advocate. The position is therefore that an advocate cannot exercise lien over Client’s money on basis of a Bill of Costs that is yet to be taxed. It is improper for an advocate to withhold a Client’s money on account of fees that is yet to be ascertained through the taxation process.
25. In the present case, all that is water under the bridge as the taxation has already been done. The Client says that the Advocate has already recovered his fees from the funds held.
26. The parties herein have litigated in Nduati & Company Advocates v Mugo [2025] KEHC 14142 (KLR) The Court reproduces the determination of Namisi J in extenso.
“23. I have keenly read the Applications, the Affidavits and submissions. The first question for this Court to determine is whether the Client’s Application is res judicata. The Advocate claims that the Application raises issues substantially in issue in Nairobi HCCOMM E589 of 2021, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. The Advocate relied on the provisions of section 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the cases of Peter Ngome -vs- Plantex Company Ltd [eKLR] and Njue Ngai -vs- Euphantus Njiru Ngai & Another [eKLR].
24. The doctrine of res judicata is a fundamental pillar of our legal system, designed to ensure the finality of litigation and to protect litigants from being vexed twice over the same cause. The conditions for its application are well settled, as articulated by the Court of Appeal in Uhuru Highway Devt Ltd -vs- Central Bank of Kenya & 2 Others, eKLR. The critical question for this Court is whether a dismissal for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules amounts to a matter that has been heard and finally decided.
25. While it is correct that the Court of Appeal in Njue Ngai case (supra) affirmed that a dismissal for want of prosecution can, in appropriate circumstances, sustain a plea of res judicata, this principle is not absolute and must be applied with caution. A dismissal for want of prosecution is, by its very nature, a procedural dismissal. It does not involve the Court undertaking a substantive adjudication of the issues, hearing evidence, and making a determination on the merits of the claim. More importantly, the Client has deponed, and the Advocate has not denied, that there is an active application for reinstatement of HCCOMM E589 of 2021. The existence of this pending application fundamentally alters the legal landscape. A suit that is capable of being revived by the Court through a pending application cannot be said to have been finally decided. Finality, in the context of res judicata implies that all avenues for reviving the suit within the same court hierarchy have been exhausted or are unavailable.
26. In the premise, I find that the plea of res judicata is not sustainable at this juncture.
27. The next issue for determination is the scope of the Court’s discretion under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. This issue forms the gravamen of the dispute before this Court. The section 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.
28. The Advocate urges a narrow application of the section, while the Client implores the Court to exercise its inherent and statutory discretion to achieve substantive justice.
29. The Advocate’s interpretation treats the Court as a mere rubber stamp once a valid certificate of taxation is issued. In my considered opinion, this view is a misapprehension of the law. It completely ignores the deliberate and expansive wording “may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit”. This phrase is not mere surplusage; it confers upon the Court a wide, albeit judicial, discretion. The provision is permissive, not mandatory. The word “including” connotes that entering judgement is but one of the several orders the Court is empowered to make in relation to the Certificate.
30. The summary procedure under Section 51(2) is designed to provide Advocates with an expeditious method of recovering their duly earned and taxed fees, thereby avoiding the delay and expense of a full suit. However, this procedure does not operate in a legal or equitable vacuum. It is subject to the Court’s overarching duty to administer justice under Article 159 of The Constitution and its inherent powers, saved by section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, to prevent the abuse of its process and to make such orders as are necessary to meet the ends of justice.
31. In the instant case, the Advocate has admitted under oath to holding a sum of the Client’s money that is substantially greater than the total of his two taxed Bills. He now asks this Court to arm him with a decree that would allow him to execute against the Client for Kshs 678,594/=, while he continues to hold a surplus of her funds amounting to over Kshs 2 million. This would be a patently unjust and unconscionable outcome. It would amount to the Court sanctioning a situation where the Advocate is unjustly enriched by retaining the surplus while simultaneously being empowered to execute against the very person whose money he holds. This is precisely the kind of mischief that the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and the discretionary language of section 51(2) are designed to prevent.
32. The Client’s prayer is, in essence, for an equitable set-off. The Advocate’s claim is liquidated and the Client’s claim for the return of her money is so closely and inextricably intertwined with the very same transaction – the Advocate-Client relationship – that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the Advocate to enforce his claim without taking the Client’s countervailing claim into account. To do otherwise would be to promote a multiplicity of suits, forcing the Client to execute against the Advocate for her surplus while the Advocate executes against her for his costs -a circuitous and absurd result.
33. I find that section 51(2) clothes the Court with sufficient discretion to look beyond the four corners of the Certificate of Taxation and consider the entire factual matrix of the relationship between the parties. This is particularly so where, as is the case herein, serious issues of breach of trust and unjust enrichment are raised against an Officer of the Court. The Court is not bound to enter judgement mechanically. It has the power, and indeed, the duty, in the interest of substantive justice, to order a set-off of the certified costs against the funds admittedly held by the Advocate.
34. Having said that, the next question that this Court must address is the extent of the Advocate’s lien. The Advocate seeks to justify his retention of the entire balance by claiming a lien not only for the two taxed Bills of Costs but also for prospective, untaxed Party-and-Party costs in the dismissed suit, HCCOMM E589 of 2021. The Client argues that a lien cannot be exercised for untaxed or speculative costs, citing persuasive authority in Simon Njumwa Maghanga -vs- Joyce Jepatarus Kagongo t/a Chesaro & Co. Advocates KEHC 6096 (KLR) and Milinski -vs- Mokaya & Another, Civil Suit No E029 of 2020 KEHC 8 (KLR).
35. An Advocate’s retaining lien is a common law right to retain a client’s property – be it documents or money – that comes into their possession during the course of their professional engagement, as security for their costs. However, this lien is for costs that are due. Costs are not considered legally due and enforceable until they have been ascertained, either by agreement between the parties or by taxation by a Taxing Officer. The position was articulated in the Simon Njumwa Maghanga case (supra) as follows:
“The position therefore is that an advocate cannot exercise lien over client's money on the basis of a bill of cost that is yet to be taxed. It is improper for an advocate to withhold a client's money on account of fees that is yet to be ascertained through the taxation process. The Advocate should release the client's money to him.”
36. The Advocate’s claim for Party-and-Party costs in HCCOMM E589 of 2021 is, therefore, untenable. Firstly, those costs have not been filed for taxation. They are, at this stage, entirely speculative. To allow an Advocate to hold a client’s funds hostage for a future, uncertain, and untaxed amount would be to grant them an oppressive tool and would be gross abuse of the right of lien. Secondly, once the Advocate’s costs in this matter and in Misc Application E313 of 2021 were taxed and certified, the Advocate’s lien crystallised to the extent of that certified sum, Kshs 2,291,104/=. Since he held funds far in excess of this amount, the lien was, in effect satisfied from the moment of certification. The Advocate’s continued retention of the surplus beyond this amount cannot be justified by the lien.
37. The Court of Appeal in Waruhiu K’owade & Ng’ang’a Advocates v Mutune Investment Limited [2016] KECA 835 (KLR) stated thus:
“To allow advocates to retain client funds for no reason at all would be a travesty of justice and would be an abuse of the fiduciary trust given and by extension would amount to conversion and criminal activity. It would amount to deceit and unjust enrichment and ultimately, would erode public confidence in the administration of justice.”
38. I, therefore, find that the Advocate’s lien was only valid to the extent of the total taxed costs of Kshs 2,291,104/-. His attempt to extend the lien to cover potential, untaxed costs from a separate dismissed suit is improper and unlawful. His continued retention of the surplus funds after the ascertainment of his fees is unjustified and amounts to breach of his fiduciary duty to the Client.
39. The final issue for determination is that of interest. The Advocate claims interest at 14% per annum from 10 May 2021, being the date, he filed the Bill of Costs. Notably, the prayer is not contained in the Application. The Client objects, stating that interest was neither claimed in the Bill of Costs nor awarded by the taxing Master, and the Advocate did not file a reference to challenge its non-award. The Client relies on the case of Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates -vs- Kenindia Assurance CoLtd KECA 1443 (KLR).
40. The claim for interest under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order is not an automatic entitlement that attaches at the execution stage. It is a substantive claim that must be properly pleaded and adjudicated during the taxation process itself. Rule 7 provides that an Advocate may charge interest, provided such a claim is raised before the amount in the bill shall have been paid or tendered in full.
41. In the Otieno Ragot Case (supra), the Court of Appeal provided a definitive and binding interpretation of this rule and its interplay with section 51(2) of the Act. The Court held, inter alia, that an advocate cannot claim the interest for the first time in an application to enforce the Certificate of Costs. The claim must be included in the Bill of Costs to give the Taxing Master jurisdiction to consider and award it, and to accord the client the opportunity to contest it. A perusal of the Ruling dated 17 June 2022 confirms that no award of interest was made by the Taxing Master. The Advocate did not file a reference under Paragraph 11 of the Order to challenge this omission. Therefore, to award interest now would be to impermissibly vary the final Certificate of Taxation, which this Court cannot do in this instance.
42. Furthermore, there is a more compelling equitable argument against the award of interest in this specific case. The Advocate has had the benefit of holding the Client’s funds, which far exceed his costs, since 2019. To allow him to earn interest on his costs while he has been enjoying the benefit of the Client’s larger sum of money would be wholly inequitable.
43. For these reasons, the claim for interest is disallowed.
44. In view of the foregoing, I make the following orders:
(i) The Advocate’s Notice of Motion dated 7 March 2025 is hereby dismissed.
(ii) The Client’s Notice of Motion dated 9 May 2025 is allowed in the following terms:
(a) An order is hereby issued directing the Advocate to pay to the Client an amount of Kshs 4,095,526/=, being the balance of the money in the Advocate’s custody held in trust for the Client less the taxed costs in Nairobi HCC Misc Cause No. 18 of 2021 and Nairobi HCC Misc No. E313 of 2021 within 21 days of the date hereof;
(b) Costs of the application are awarded to the Client. “
27. To this Court, Namisi J. determined conclusively the issue of the taxed costs and directed that Counsel remits the balance held in trust. This is no longer a live issue for determination by the Court.
28. In any event the Court has perused the Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 8th January, 2026 by the Client. She states as follows (underlined emphasis ours);
“1. THAT I am a female adult of sound mind and the Client herein therefore competent to swear this Affidavit.
2. THAT I swear this affidavit to apprise this Honourable Court of subsequent developments that are material to the issues in dispute herein.
3. THAT the Advocate herein filed the subject application dated 7th March 2025 seeking judgment and decree against me for Kshs. 1,612,510/= as per the certificate of taxation dated 21st November, 2024.
4. THAT at the same time, the Advocate also filed a similar application in Nairobi HCC. Misc.18 of 2021 (Family Division) seeking judgment and decree against me for Kshs. 678,594/=.
5. THAT I opposed the Advocate's applications for judgment in both Misc. 18 of 2021 and in this instant cause as the Advocate had expressly admitted to holding Kshs. 4,359,000/= out of the Kshs. 6,386,630/= I was claiming from him.
6. THAT in my application that sought to have the Advocate's application struck out, I duly informed the court in Misc. 18 of 2021 about this instant suit i.e. Misc. E313 of 2021 and the taxed Advocate's costs in this cause. (Annexed hereto and marked "MWM-1" is a copy of my application dated 9th May, 2025 filed in Misc. 18 2021)
7. THAT a ruling was delivered in Misc. 18 of 2021 on 9th October 2025 in which the Court dismissed the Advocate's application for judgment on certificate of taxation and allowed
my application in objection thereto, ordering:
a. That the Advocate's Notice of Motion dated 7 March 2025 is hereby dismissed.
b. That the Advocate is hereby directed to pay to the Client an amount of Kshs. 4,095,526/= being the balance of the money in the Advocate's custody held in trust for the Client less the taxed costs in Nairobi HCC Misc Cause No. 18 of 2021 and Nairobi HCC Misc No. E313 of 2021 within 21 days of the date hereof.
c. That the costs of the application are awarded to the Client. (Annexed hereto and marked "MWM-2" are copies of the said ruling in Misc. 18 2021 dated 9th October, 2025 and the resultant order).
8. THAT the Advocate did not appeal against the said ruling and in full compliance with the ruling, he deducted his taxed costs and rele
[...truncated]
1. Before the Court are two Applications to be determined together. The 1st Application is a Notice of Motion dated 7th March 2025 in which the Advocate/Applicant sought the following orders;
a) THAT this Honourable court be pleased to enter Judgment in, favor (sic) of the Applicant herein, in terms of the Certificate of Taxation dated the 11th February, 2025 in the sum of Kshs. 1,612,510.
b) THAT subject to prayer 1 above, this Honourable court be pleased to issues a decree above for the Ksh. 1,612,510 plus interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 28th April, 2021 until payment in full.
c) 3. THAT the cost of the Application be provided for.
2. This Application was supported by the Affidavit of Stanley T. Nduati. He stated that the Applicant filed a Bill of Costs dated 28th April 2021 in the above-captioned matter, which has since been taxed. That following the Ruling of the Taxing Master delivered on 18th November 2024, a Certificate of Taxation dated 21st November 2024 was duly extracted and issued. It is contended that an Advocate is legally entitled to fees properly earned in accordance with the Advocates Remuneration Order. That further and notably, the Respondent does not dispute either the fees or the existence of the retainer.
3. The Respondent filed the Replying Affidavit of Mary Wairimu Mugo sworn on 9th May 2025. She stated that the Applicant/Advocate relied on the Bills of Costs to justify unlawfully withholding Kshs. 6,386,630/=. This was from a total sum of Kshs. 19,640,000/- received in trust on behalf of the Client from a conveyancing transaction. The Advocate further failed to render a proper cash account, thereby necessitating the filing of a suit. Although the Bills of Costs were eventually taxed and certificates issued for Kshs. 678,594/= and Kshs. 1,612,510/= respectively, the Advocate has refused to release the balance held. The Advocate neither issued a fee note nor raised any claim for interest in the Bills of Costs, and the Taxing Master did not award interest. Consequently, the claim for interest at 14% per annum is unfounded and an abuse of the Court process.
4. The Client further averred that the Advocate, having received the funds in a fiduciary capacity, cannot lawfully retain sums exceeding the taxed costs or seek interest. This is all while still holding the Client’s money, particularly where the Advocate has admitted to holding Kshs. 4,359,000/=. The continued retention of the fund’s amounts to unjust enrichment, especially as the Advocate has benefited from interest accruing in the client account since 2019. The matter is now subject to proceedings before the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal. It is asserted that no sums are due to the Advocate; instead, the Client is entitled to recover the balance of Kshs. 4,105,526/- unlawfully withheld.
5. The 2nd Application is a Notice of Motion dated 9th May 2025. The Client sought the following orders;
1. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to give directions on the issue of the Client's pending balance of Kshs. 6,386,630/= being unlawfully held by the Advocate.
2. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order directing the Advocate to pay to the Client's account an amount of Kshs. 4,105,526/=, being the balance of the money in the Advocate's custody held in trust for the Client less the taxed costs in Nairobi HCC Misc. No. 18 of 2021 and Nairobi HCC Misc. No. E313 of 2021.
3. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to strike out the Advocate's application dated 7th March 2025 together with the Supporting Affidavit Sworn on 7th March 2025.
4. THAT costs of this Application be in the cause.
6. This Application was supported by the Affidavit of Mary Wairimu Mugo. She stated that the Advocate served the Client with two Bills of Costs dated 28th April 2021 and 10th May 2021 seeking Kshs. 4,155,473.80 and Kshs. 5,581,167/- respectively. That the Advocate relied on the same to justify withholding Kshs. 6,386,630/= from the proceeds of Kshs. 19,640,000/- held in trust for the Client arising from a conveyancing transaction. Upon taxation, the amounts due were determined at KShs. 678,594/= and Kshs. 1,612,510/= respectively, yet the Advocate has declined to release the balance held.
7. It was contended that the Advocate, having received the funds in a fiduciary capacity, is only entitled to deduct what is lawfully due and cannot arbitrarily impose interest not initially claimed, particularly while retaining sums in excess of the taxed amounts. The matter is further the subject of a complaint before the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal. That given the Advocate’s admission to holding Kshs. 4,359,000/=, it is submitted that he cannot seek interest or a decree while still retaining the Client’s funds. Lastly, that it is in the interest of justice that the Court grants the orders sought.
8. In response, the Advocate filed the Replying Affidavit, sworn on 21st May, 2025. He stated that the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs was taxed on 17th June 2022, and a Certificate of Taxation was subsequently issued on 11th February 2025, which has neither been set aside nor altered by the Court. Consequently, the Client’s objection to the procedural application for judgment is misconceived and devoid of any legal or procedural foundation. The Client’s application is therefore misguided, as it seeks to challenge a valid and subsisting Certificate of Taxation that remains binding and enforceable.
9. Further, the application is res judicata within the meaning of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it raises issues that were directly and substantially in issue in Nairobi HCCOMM E589 of 2021, Mary Wairimu Mugo vs. Nduati & Company Advocate, where the same parties litigated and the matters were conclusively determined. The application also offends procedural rules by introducing new issues not canvassed before the Taxing Officer, contrary to Section 51 of the Advocates Act and Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Therefore, the application is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the Court process, given the multiplicity of similar proceedings and complaints previously instituted by the Client. This is including matters before the High Court and the Advocates' Complaints Commission.
10. The Advocate also filed Grounds of Opposition dated 21st May 2025 on the following grounds;
a) The Client's Application is misguided as the Certificate of Taxation issued by the Taxing Officer on 11th February, 2025 has not been set aside or altered by the Court.
b) The Client's Application offends the rules of procedure as it surreptitiously introduces a new cause of action and issues at the judgment cum procedural stage of a taxation proceeding contrary to the provisions of Section 51 of the Advocates Act and Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014.
c) The Client's Application offend the provisions of Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014 as it circumvents the procedural rules with respect to filing of reference in taxation proceedings.
d) The Client's Application is Res judicata and offends the provisions of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act as it raises new issues that were directly and substantially in issue in Nairobi HCCC Misc. App. 18 of 2021 Mary Wairimu Mugo vs. Nduati & Company Advocate, where the parties herein were the same and the issues raised in the Application were raised, heard, and finally decided.
e) The Application is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process as the Client has filed numerous applications and complaints over the same issues, to wit: -
i. Nairobi HCCC Misc. App. 18 of 2021 Nduati & Company Advocates vs. Mary Mugo where the Client is seeking similar remedies;
ii. She has lodged a complaint with the Advocates' Complaint Commission, which complaint has been adjudged to be unmeritorious, and
iii. She is seeking to reinstate, through an application dated 8th May, 2025, HCCOMM E589 of 2021, Mary Wairimu Mugo vs. Nduati & Company Advocate, which application, if allowed, will make the current Application Res judicata.
f) All this duplication of proceedings and complaints in different tribunals is aimed at delaying the hearing of the application for judgment and deny the advocate from realizing his fees plus interest.
Issues for determination
11. Having carefully considered the Applications, the responses therewith, and the written submissions, the following issues are for determination;
a) Whether Judgment should be entered in terms of the Certificate of Taxation dated 11th February, 2025.in the sum of Kshs. 1,612,510.
b) Whether interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 28th April, 2021 should issue on the taxed costs.
c) Whether the Court should direct the Advocate to remit the sum of Kshs. 4,105,526/= to the Client.
Analysis
12. It is undisputed that in the instant case there is no evidence of a reference filed by the Client against the order of the Taxing Officer. This is the procedure provided for challenging the decisions of a Taxing Officer on taxed costs and the Certificates of costs issued, as per the provisions of Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
a) Whether Judgment should be entered in terms of the Certificate of Taxation dated 11th February, 2025.in the sum of Kshs. 1,612,510.
13. It is the Court’s understanding that in a nutshell the Client does not dispute that there exists a Certificate of costs. which the Advocate needs to be adopted as a judgment of the Court. The Client’s complaint is that the Advocate initially asserted a lien over the funds pending taxation of costs; however, the Bills of Costs have since been taxed and certified at Kshs. 1,612,510 in this matter and Kshs. 678,594 in Misc. No. 18 of 2021. Despite this, the Advocate continues to withhold the entire sum of Kshs. 6.3 million, in breach of his fiduciary duties and in contravention of established principles of professional conduct.
14. In the case of Musyoka & Wambua Advocates Vs Rustam Hira Advocate (2006) eKLR held: -
“Section 51 of the Act makes general provisions as to taxation, as the marginal note indicates. One of those provisions is that the court has a discretion to enter judgment on a Certificate of Taxation which has not been set aside or altered, where there is no dispute as to retainer. This in my view, is a mode of recovery of taxed costs provided by law, in addition to filing of suit, ......
In the present case, there is no allegation that the Advocate had no instructions to act in the matter for the client.... so, there is not, and there cannot be, a dispute as to retainer. As it stands now the Certificate of Taxation has not been set aside or altered. It has been submitted that the client has taken steps to challenge the award on instruction fee. If that be the case, what the client should have done was to seek a stay of further proceedings until the challenge to the taxation is disposed off. There is no such application before the court. In the circumstances, I see no reason to deny the Advocate judgment as sought.”
15. The question that vexes this Court is why the Advocate wishes to have a Judgement of this Court to recover funds held in his Client’s Account and over which he has asserted a lien after taxation of costs.
16. It is a matter of the Advocate transferring the funds from the Client’s account and to his office account now that the quantum of costs is known and not disputed.
17. The Court is at a loss why it should enter Judgement on taxed costs where there is no dispute and the Advocate is seized of such funds to cover the costs. The Court declines to make such orders as it finds them superfluous and uncalled for.
b) Whether interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 28th April, 2021 should issue on the taxed costs.
18. On the issue of interest, the Advocate submitted that an Advocate is, per virtue of the provisions of Rule 7, entitled to interest at 14 per cent per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the Client.
19. On the other hand, the Client pointed out that the Advocate did not claim interest in the Bill of Costs dated 27th July, 2021. It is also not in dispute that interest was not awarded in the taxation ruling on the Advocate's Bill of Costs under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
20. Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order states as follows:
An advocate may charge interest at 14 per cent per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, provided that such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill shall have been paid or tendered in full.
21. In Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates v County Government of Nairobi (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E027 of 2020) [2025], the Court observed thus:
“Under the cited Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, to lawfully claim the 14% interest, or any part thereof, on the taxed bill of costs, the advocate must:
a. Serve the itemized bill of costs to the client,
b. Explicitly include a demand for interest at 14% in the bill, and
c. Wait for 30 days to lapse after service before interest begins to accrue.
If the advocate fails to include the interest demand in the bill, then:
a. The Taxing Officer lacks jurisdiction to award that interest during taxation;
and
b. The Court cannot include interest in the certificate of taxation or any resulting judgment adopting the certificate of costs.”
22. From a perusal of the record, there is no evidence that the Applicant ever served the Respondent with any document making a claim for interest. Therefore, in line with Rule 7, the Applicant is found to have failed to furnish proof that it had raised the claim for interest with the Respondent. The Court declines to award interest at the rate of 14% p.a.
23. On the issue of lien, the Court reiterates the holding by Khaminwa J. in JOHN KARUNGAI NYAMU & ANOTHER v MUU & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES [2008] KEHC 3197 (KLR)
“the Advocate has no right under any law to hold monies that which have come to him for onward transmission to his client as lien…”
The Court had earlier stated as follows;
“It is clear from the foregoing that an Advocate’s fees are not due until his Bill of Costs has been served on the client and where it is not settled, until it is taxed by the court. “
24. This Court agrees with the Learned Judge’s holding that the Advocates fee only becomes due after the Bill of Costs has been taxed by the Court. Before the Bill is taxed, there is no telling how much is due to the Advocate. The position is therefore that an advocate cannot exercise lien over Client’s money on basis of a Bill of Costs that is yet to be taxed. It is improper for an advocate to withhold a Client’s money on account of fees that is yet to be ascertained through the taxation process.
25. In the present case, all that is water under the bridge as the taxation has already been done. The Client says that the Advocate has already recovered his fees from the funds held.
26. The parties herein have litigated in Nduati & Company Advocates v Mugo [2025] KEHC 14142 (KLR) The Court reproduces the determination of Namisi J in extenso.
“23. I have keenly read the Applications, the Affidavits and submissions. The first question for this Court to determine is whether the Client’s Application is res judicata. The Advocate claims that the Application raises issues substantially in issue in Nairobi HCCOMM E589 of 2021, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. The Advocate relied on the provisions of section 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the cases of Peter Ngome -vs- Plantex Company Ltd [eKLR] and Njue Ngai -vs- Euphantus Njiru Ngai & Another [eKLR].
24. The doctrine of res judicata is a fundamental pillar of our legal system, designed to ensure the finality of litigation and to protect litigants from being vexed twice over the same cause. The conditions for its application are well settled, as articulated by the Court of Appeal in Uhuru Highway Devt Ltd -vs- Central Bank of Kenya & 2 Others, eKLR. The critical question for this Court is whether a dismissal for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules amounts to a matter that has been heard and finally decided.
25. While it is correct that the Court of Appeal in Njue Ngai case (supra) affirmed that a dismissal for want of prosecution can, in appropriate circumstances, sustain a plea of res judicata, this principle is not absolute and must be applied with caution. A dismissal for want of prosecution is, by its very nature, a procedural dismissal. It does not involve the Court undertaking a substantive adjudication of the issues, hearing evidence, and making a determination on the merits of the claim. More importantly, the Client has deponed, and the Advocate has not denied, that there is an active application for reinstatement of HCCOMM E589 of 2021. The existence of this pending application fundamentally alters the legal landscape. A suit that is capable of being revived by the Court through a pending application cannot be said to have been finally decided. Finality, in the context of res judicata implies that all avenues for reviving the suit within the same court hierarchy have been exhausted or are unavailable.
26. In the premise, I find that the plea of res judicata is not sustainable at this juncture.
27. The next issue for determination is the scope of the Court’s discretion under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. This issue forms the gravamen of the dispute before this Court. The section 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.
28. The Advocate urges a narrow application of the section, while the Client implores the Court to exercise its inherent and statutory discretion to achieve substantive justice.
29. The Advocate’s interpretation treats the Court as a mere rubber stamp once a valid certificate of taxation is issued. In my considered opinion, this view is a misapprehension of the law. It completely ignores the deliberate and expansive wording “may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit”. This phrase is not mere surplusage; it confers upon the Court a wide, albeit judicial, discretion. The provision is permissive, not mandatory. The word “including” connotes that entering judgement is but one of the several orders the Court is empowered to make in relation to the Certificate.
30. The summary procedure under Section 51(2) is designed to provide Advocates with an expeditious method of recovering their duly earned and taxed fees, thereby avoiding the delay and expense of a full suit. However, this procedure does not operate in a legal or equitable vacuum. It is subject to the Court’s overarching duty to administer justice under Article 159 of The Constitution and its inherent powers, saved by section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, to prevent the abuse of its process and to make such orders as are necessary to meet the ends of justice.
31. In the instant case, the Advocate has admitted under oath to holding a sum of the Client’s money that is substantially greater than the total of his two taxed Bills. He now asks this Court to arm him with a decree that would allow him to execute against the Client for Kshs 678,594/=, while he continues to hold a surplus of her funds amounting to over Kshs 2 million. This would be a patently unjust and unconscionable outcome. It would amount to the Court sanctioning a situation where the Advocate is unjustly enriched by retaining the surplus while simultaneously being empowered to execute against the very person whose money he holds. This is precisely the kind of mischief that the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and the discretionary language of section 51(2) are designed to prevent.
32. The Client’s prayer is, in essence, for an equitable set-off. The Advocate’s claim is liquidated and the Client’s claim for the return of her money is so closely and inextricably intertwined with the very same transaction – the Advocate-Client relationship – that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the Advocate to enforce his claim without taking the Client’s countervailing claim into account. To do otherwise would be to promote a multiplicity of suits, forcing the Client to execute against the Advocate for her surplus while the Advocate executes against her for his costs -a circuitous and absurd result.
33. I find that section 51(2) clothes the Court with sufficient discretion to look beyond the four corners of the Certificate of Taxation and consider the entire factual matrix of the relationship between the parties. This is particularly so where, as is the case herein, serious issues of breach of trust and unjust enrichment are raised against an Officer of the Court. The Court is not bound to enter judgement mechanically. It has the power, and indeed, the duty, in the interest of substantive justice, to order a set-off of the certified costs against the funds admittedly held by the Advocate.
34. Having said that, the next question that this Court must address is the extent of the Advocate’s lien. The Advocate seeks to justify his retention of the entire balance by claiming a lien not only for the two taxed Bills of Costs but also for prospective, untaxed Party-and-Party costs in the dismissed suit, HCCOMM E589 of 2021. The Client argues that a lien cannot be exercised for untaxed or speculative costs, citing persuasive authority in Simon Njumwa Maghanga -vs- Joyce Jepatarus Kagongo t/a Chesaro & Co. Advocates KEHC 6096 (KLR) and Milinski -vs- Mokaya & Another, Civil Suit No E029 of 2020 KEHC 8 (KLR).
35. An Advocate’s retaining lien is a common law right to retain a client’s property – be it documents or money – that comes into their possession during the course of their professional engagement, as security for their costs. However, this lien is for costs that are due. Costs are not considered legally due and enforceable until they have been ascertained, either by agreement between the parties or by taxation by a Taxing Officer. The position was articulated in the Simon Njumwa Maghanga case (supra) as follows:
“The position therefore is that an advocate cannot exercise lien over client's money on the basis of a bill of cost that is yet to be taxed. It is improper for an advocate to withhold a client's money on account of fees that is yet to be ascertained through the taxation process. The Advocate should release the client's money to him.”
36. The Advocate’s claim for Party-and-Party costs in HCCOMM E589 of 2021 is, therefore, untenable. Firstly, those costs have not been filed for taxation. They are, at this stage, entirely speculative. To allow an Advocate to hold a client’s funds hostage for a future, uncertain, and untaxed amount would be to grant them an oppressive tool and would be gross abuse of the right of lien. Secondly, once the Advocate’s costs in this matter and in Misc Application E313 of 2021 were taxed and certified, the Advocate’s lien crystallised to the extent of that certified sum, Kshs 2,291,104/=. Since he held funds far in excess of this amount, the lien was, in effect satisfied from the moment of certification. The Advocate’s continued retention of the surplus beyond this amount cannot be justified by the lien.
37. The Court of Appeal in Waruhiu K’owade & Ng’ang’a Advocates v Mutune Investment Limited [2016] KECA 835 (KLR) stated thus:
“To allow advocates to retain client funds for no reason at all would be a travesty of justice and would be an abuse of the fiduciary trust given and by extension would amount to conversion and criminal activity. It would amount to deceit and unjust enrichment and ultimately, would erode public confidence in the administration of justice.”
38. I, therefore, find that the Advocate’s lien was only valid to the extent of the total taxed costs of Kshs 2,291,104/-. His attempt to extend the lien to cover potential, untaxed costs from a separate dismissed suit is improper and unlawful. His continued retention of the surplus funds after the ascertainment of his fees is unjustified and amounts to breach of his fiduciary duty to the Client.
39. The final issue for determination is that of interest. The Advocate claims interest at 14% per annum from 10 May 2021, being the date, he filed the Bill of Costs. Notably, the prayer is not contained in the Application. The Client objects, stating that interest was neither claimed in the Bill of Costs nor awarded by the taxing Master, and the Advocate did not file a reference to challenge its non-award. The Client relies on the case of Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates -vs- Kenindia Assurance CoLtd KECA 1443 (KLR).
40. The claim for interest under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order is not an automatic entitlement that attaches at the execution stage. It is a substantive claim that must be properly pleaded and adjudicated during the taxation process itself. Rule 7 provides that an Advocate may charge interest, provided such a claim is raised before the amount in the bill shall have been paid or tendered in full.
41. In the Otieno Ragot Case (supra), the Court of Appeal provided a definitive and binding interpretation of this rule and its interplay with section 51(2) of the Act. The Court held, inter alia, that an advocate cannot claim the interest for the first time in an application to enforce the Certificate of Costs. The claim must be included in the Bill of Costs to give the Taxing Master jurisdiction to consider and award it, and to accord the client the opportunity to contest it. A perusal of the Ruling dated 17 June 2022 confirms that no award of interest was made by the Taxing Master. The Advocate did not file a reference under Paragraph 11 of the Order to challenge this omission. Therefore, to award interest now would be to impermissibly vary the final Certificate of Taxation, which this Court cannot do in this instance.
42. Furthermore, there is a more compelling equitable argument against the award of interest in this specific case. The Advocate has had the benefit of holding the Client’s funds, which far exceed his costs, since 2019. To allow him to earn interest on his costs while he has been enjoying the benefit of the Client’s larger sum of money would be wholly inequitable.
43. For these reasons, the claim for interest is disallowed.
44. In view of the foregoing, I make the following orders:
(i) The Advocate’s Notice of Motion dated 7 March 2025 is hereby dismissed.
(ii) The Client’s Notice of Motion dated 9 May 2025 is allowed in the following terms:
(a) An order is hereby issued directing the Advocate to pay to the Client an amount of Kshs 4,095,526/=, being the balance of the money in the Advocate’s custody held in trust for the Client less the taxed costs in Nairobi HCC Misc Cause No. 18 of 2021 and Nairobi HCC Misc No. E313 of 2021 within 21 days of the date hereof;
(b) Costs of the application are awarded to the Client. “
27. To this Court, Namisi J. determined conclusively the issue of the taxed costs and directed that Counsel remits the balance held in trust. This is no longer a live issue for determination by the Court.
28. In any event the Court has perused the Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 8th January, 2026 by the Client. She states as follows (underlined emphasis ours);
“1. THAT I am a female adult of sound mind and the Client herein therefore competent to swear this Affidavit.
2. THAT I swear this affidavit to apprise this Honourable Court of subsequent developments that are material to the issues in dispute herein.
3. THAT the Advocate herein filed the subject application dated 7th March 2025 seeking judgment and decree against me for Kshs. 1,612,510/= as per the certificate of taxation dated 21st November, 2024.
4. THAT at the same time, the Advocate also filed a similar application in Nairobi HCC. Misc.18 of 2021 (Family Division) seeking judgment and decree against me for Kshs. 678,594/=.
5. THAT I opposed the Advocate's applications for judgment in both Misc. 18 of 2021 and in this instant cause as the Advocate had expressly admitted to holding Kshs. 4,359,000/= out of the Kshs. 6,386,630/= I was claiming from him.
6. THAT in my application that sought to have the Advocate's application struck out, I duly informed the court in Misc. 18 of 2021 about this instant suit i.e. Misc. E313 of 2021 and the taxed Advocate's costs in this cause. (Annexed hereto and marked "MWM-1" is a copy of my application dated 9th May, 2025 filed in Misc. 18 2021)
7. THAT a ruling was delivered in Misc. 18 of 2021 on 9th October 2025 in which the Court dismissed the Advocate's application for judgment on certificate of taxation and allowed
my application in objection thereto, ordering:
a. That the Advocate's Notice of Motion dated 7 March 2025 is hereby dismissed.
b. That the Advocate is hereby directed to pay to the Client an amount of Kshs. 4,095,526/= being the balance of the money in the Advocate's custody held in trust for the Client less the taxed costs in Nairobi HCC Misc Cause No. 18 of 2021 and Nairobi HCC Misc No. E313 of 2021 within 21 days of the date hereof.
c. That the costs of the application are awarded to the Client. (Annexed hereto and marked "MWM-2" are copies of the said ruling in Misc. 18 2021 dated 9th October, 2025 and the resultant order).
8. THAT the Advocate did not appeal against the said ruling and in full compliance with the ruling, he deducted his taxed costs and rele
[...truncated]