Introduction and Background
1. The Applicants have filed various applications in various files under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act(Chapter 16 of the Laws of Kenya) seeking to have the court enter judgment in their favor in respect of Certificates of Taxation issued on 14 th November 2025 together with interest at a rate of 14% per annum, calculated from 18 th July 2025 when the Respondent was apparently served with the respective Bills of Costs.
2. The Applicants contend that the Respondent has failed to pay the legal fees despite demands and that it has alleged to be facing a liquidity crisis, putting the recovery of funds at risk. That the Certificates of Taxation have not been set aside or altered by the court and that the Applicants are legally entitled to the fees and interest as per the Advocates Remuneration Order . There was no response from the Respondent to the applications, however, its counsel objected to the prayer for interest when the parties appeared before the court for the hearing.
Analysis and Determination
3. As stated, the Applicants have based their plea for judgment on the Certificates of taxation on section 51(2) of the Advocates Act which states that:
The certificate of the taxing officer by whom a 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.
4. The words employed in the above provision are clear and demonstrate that the intention of the Legislature is that the costs ascertained by the certificate of taxation or costs, are final with respect to costs covered therein. Further, a party who wishes to challenge the Certificate of Taxation has the right to file a reference from the decision of the Deputy Registrar (see Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot and Company Advocates [2024] KESC 44 (KLR) ). As there is no reference against any of the decisions by the Deputy Registrar on the Bills of Costs, it follows that there is no valid reason to stop the court from entering judgment on the same.
5. On interest, it is only once the amount has been ascertained and judgment entered that interest may be imposed. The relevant legal provision is Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order which provides as follows:
An Advocate may charge interest at 14% per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from expiration of one month from delivery of his bill to the client, provided such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full.
6. This aforesaid legal provision is clear that an Advocate is entitled to charge interest on his legal fees at the rate of 14% per annum until payment in full subject to the requirement that the Advocate must raise the claim for interest before the bill is paid in full. The burden is on the Advocate to show that it has complied with the Rule 7 aforesaid for the court to award interest at the rate provided for (see KMK Law LLP Advocates v Kanuri Limited [2022] KEHC 13283 (KLR) ]
7. In Kinyua & Maingi & Co. Advocates v Trident Insurance Company Ltd [2026] KEHC 9070 (KLR) Dr. Mugambi J., also held as follows:
6. The jurisprudence on this provision is settled. In Jackson Omwenga & Co Advocates V Everest Enterprises Ltd, [2017], the Court held that under Rule 7, an advocate may only charge interest upon demonstrating two conditions: first, that the bill was duly delivered to the client and second, that the claim for interest was expressly raised before the bill was paid or tendered in full . Similarly, in Prof. Tom Ojienda & Associates V County Government of Nairobi, (JR Misc. Appln E027 of 2020) [2025], the Court emphasized that an advocate seeking to rely on Rule 7 must explicitly include a demand for interest in the bill itself .
7. The requirement for an advocate to make a specific demand for interest is a deliberate safeguard embedded in Rule 7. As the Court observed in Makhecha & Company Advocates V Central Bank of Kenya, [2020] KEHC 9769 (KLR), the purpose of such a demand is to place the client on clear notice that failure to settle the bill within the statutory period will attract an additional financial burden in the form of interest. The central issue, therefore, is whether the Applicant made a clear demand for interest in the Bill of Costs or Certificate of Taxation.
8.In this case, the Applicants have claimed interest in their deposition. I however note that neither the Bill of Costs nor the Certificate of Taxation contained an express claim for interest. In the absence of a prior demand, the claim for interest cannot be sustained within the meaning of Rule 7 of the ARO.
9. Nonetheless, this Court cannot ignore the broader policy consideration that the Advocate has been kept out of its money for over two years. In such circumstances, the Court is enjoined to exercise its discretion under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, which empowers it to award interest at such rate and from such date as it considers just. The rationale for such discretion is to ensure fairness and to compensate a party who has been deprived of the use of its money.
8. As stated, the Respondent’s counsel objected to the prayer for interest. However, I have perused the Bills of Costs and note that the Applicants expressly claimed interest at 14% per annum therein. The Applicants have also demonstrated, through the Affidavits of Service, that the Bills were duly served on the Respondent on 18 th July 2025. As the claim for interest was raised before the Bills were paid and the Respondent has not paid or tendered the sums therein, the Applicants are entitled to interest at 14% per annum from at least one month after the date of service, being 18 th August 2025, until payment in full. The objection by the Respondent's counsel is therefore overruled.
Conclusion and Disposition
9. In the foregoing, I make the following orders:
1) Judgment is entered for the Applicants against the Respondent for the total sum of Kshs. 390,215.00 across the 5 files, together with interest thereon at 14% per annum from 18 th August 2025 until payment in full.
2) There is no order as to costs
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED virtually this 3 rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER
2026
............................................................................
J W W MONGARE
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF
1. N/A for the Applicant
2. Mr. Kitwai for the Respondent
3. Abdisalan- Court Assistant
2 | Page
1. The Applicants have filed various applications in various files under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act(Chapter 16 of the Laws of Kenya) seeking to have the court enter judgment in their favor in respect of Certificates of Taxation issued on 14 th November 2025 together with interest at a rate of 14% per annum, calculated from 18 th July 2025 when the Respondent was apparently served with the respective Bills of Costs.
2. The Applicants contend that the Respondent has failed to pay the legal fees despite demands and that it has alleged to be facing a liquidity crisis, putting the recovery of funds at risk. That the Certificates of Taxation have not been set aside or altered by the court and that the Applicants are legally entitled to the fees and interest as per the Advocates Remuneration Order . There was no response from the Respondent to the applications, however, its counsel objected to the prayer for interest when the parties appeared before the court for the hearing.
Analysis and Determination
3. As stated, the Applicants have based their plea for judgment on the Certificates of taxation on section 51(2) of the Advocates Act which states that:
The certificate of the taxing officer by whom a 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.
4. The words employed in the above provision are clear and demonstrate that the intention of the Legislature is that the costs ascertained by the certificate of taxation or costs, are final with respect to costs covered therein. Further, a party who wishes to challenge the Certificate of Taxation has the right to file a reference from the decision of the Deputy Registrar (see Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot and Company Advocates [2024] KESC 44 (KLR) ). As there is no reference against any of the decisions by the Deputy Registrar on the Bills of Costs, it follows that there is no valid reason to stop the court from entering judgment on the same.
5. On interest, it is only once the amount has been ascertained and judgment entered that interest may be imposed. The relevant legal provision is Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order which provides as follows:
An Advocate may charge interest at 14% per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from expiration of one month from delivery of his bill to the client, provided such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full.
6. This aforesaid legal provision is clear that an Advocate is entitled to charge interest on his legal fees at the rate of 14% per annum until payment in full subject to the requirement that the Advocate must raise the claim for interest before the bill is paid in full. The burden is on the Advocate to show that it has complied with the Rule 7 aforesaid for the court to award interest at the rate provided for (see KMK Law LLP Advocates v Kanuri Limited [2022] KEHC 13283 (KLR) ]
7. In Kinyua & Maingi & Co. Advocates v Trident Insurance Company Ltd [2026] KEHC 9070 (KLR) Dr. Mugambi J., also held as follows:
6. The jurisprudence on this provision is settled. In Jackson Omwenga & Co Advocates V Everest Enterprises Ltd, [2017], the Court held that under Rule 7, an advocate may only charge interest upon demonstrating two conditions: first, that the bill was duly delivered to the client and second, that the claim for interest was expressly raised before the bill was paid or tendered in full . Similarly, in Prof. Tom Ojienda & Associates V County Government of Nairobi, (JR Misc. Appln E027 of 2020) [2025], the Court emphasized that an advocate seeking to rely on Rule 7 must explicitly include a demand for interest in the bill itself .
7. The requirement for an advocate to make a specific demand for interest is a deliberate safeguard embedded in Rule 7. As the Court observed in Makhecha & Company Advocates V Central Bank of Kenya, [2020] KEHC 9769 (KLR), the purpose of such a demand is to place the client on clear notice that failure to settle the bill within the statutory period will attract an additional financial burden in the form of interest. The central issue, therefore, is whether the Applicant made a clear demand for interest in the Bill of Costs or Certificate of Taxation.
8.In this case, the Applicants have claimed interest in their deposition. I however note that neither the Bill of Costs nor the Certificate of Taxation contained an express claim for interest. In the absence of a prior demand, the claim for interest cannot be sustained within the meaning of Rule 7 of the ARO.
9. Nonetheless, this Court cannot ignore the broader policy consideration that the Advocate has been kept out of its money for over two years. In such circumstances, the Court is enjoined to exercise its discretion under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, which empowers it to award interest at such rate and from such date as it considers just. The rationale for such discretion is to ensure fairness and to compensate a party who has been deprived of the use of its money.
8. As stated, the Respondent’s counsel objected to the prayer for interest. However, I have perused the Bills of Costs and note that the Applicants expressly claimed interest at 14% per annum therein. The Applicants have also demonstrated, through the Affidavits of Service, that the Bills were duly served on the Respondent on 18 th July 2025. As the claim for interest was raised before the Bills were paid and the Respondent has not paid or tendered the sums therein, the Applicants are entitled to interest at 14% per annum from at least one month after the date of service, being 18 th August 2025, until payment in full. The objection by the Respondent's counsel is therefore overruled.
Conclusion and Disposition
9. In the foregoing, I make the following orders:
1) Judgment is entered for the Applicants against the Respondent for the total sum of Kshs. 390,215.00 across the 5 files, together with interest thereon at 14% per annum from 18 th August 2025 until payment in full.
2) There is no order as to costs
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED virtually this 3 rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER
2026
............................................................................
J W W MONGARE
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF
1. N/A for the Applicant
2. Mr. Kitwai for the Respondent
3. Abdisalan- Court Assistant
2 | Page