OSORO & OSORO ADVOCATES…..………...……….....................................…....APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
FREIGHT IN TIME LIMITED.………..………...….….......................................RESPONDENT
1. Before me is a Notice of Motion application dated 4 th June 2026 filed by the applicant under the provisions of section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act, sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and all the enabling provisions of the law. The applicant sought orders that the Certificate of Taxation issued on 2 nd June 2026 be adopted as a judgment of the Court and that judgment be entered in its favour against the respondent for the sum certified therein and that the taxed costs attract interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 14 th August 2025, being the date of filing and delivery of the Bill of Costs, until payment in full.
2. The application is premised on the grounds on the face of the motion and is supported by an affidavit sworn on the same day by Duncan Nyang’wara Osoro, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya practicing in the name and style of the applicant law firm. Mr. Osoro averred that the applicant acted for the respondent in Nairobi HCCOMM No. E295 of 2023 - Twiga Foods Limited v Freight In Time Limited, a claim for compensation in the sum of Kshs. 36,700,629/= together with other reliefs. He stated that following the provision of legal services, the applicant filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 10 th June 2025 in Milimani HCCOMM Misc. App. No. E876 of 2025 - Osoro & Osoro Advocates v Freight In Time Limited, which was taxed in a ruling delivered on 14 th August 2025 at Kshs. 1,451,181.89/=.
3. Mr. Osoro deposed that a notice under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order was duly issued and that a Certificate of Costs was subsequently issued on 2 nd June 2026, which certificate has neither been set aside nor varied. He asserted that despite service of the Certificate of Costs upon the respondent, the respondent failed, refused and/or neglected to settle the certified sum, thereby necessitating the instant application. In the premise, he averred that the applicant is entitled under section 51 of the Advocates Act to have the Certificate of Costs adopted as a judgment of the Court to facilitate its enforcement.
4. Upon perusal of the Court record and the Case Tracking System, it is manifest that although the respondent was duly served with the pleadings herein, he neither filed a response nor tendered written submissions in opposition thereto.
5. Upon consideration of the instant application, the grounds on its face and the affidavit in support thereof, together with the written submissions by Counsel for the applicant, the issue that arises for determination is whether the application herein is merited.
6. It is now well settled that this Court is vested with jurisdiction to enter judgment where an Advocate - Client Bill of Costs has been taxed, a Certificate of Costs has been issued by the Taxing Officer, and the retainer is not in dispute, in accordance with the provisions of section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, which states that -
“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.”
7. In the case of Lesinko Njororge & Gathogo Advocates v Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd [2021] KEHC 9046 (KLR) the Court explained the circumstances under which judgment may be entered on a Certificate of Taxation as follows –
“The procedure provided in section 51(2) of the Advocates Act aids expeditious disposal of cases relating to recovery of advocate-client costs as long as: (1) the costs have been taxed by and certified under the hand of the taxing master by a Certificate of Costs; (2) the Certificate of Costs has not been set aside or stayed or appealed against on a reference filed upon it; and (3) there is no dispute on retainer. In such case, judgment is ordinarily entered in the sum in the Certificate of Costs upon application by the advocate. The application may be commenced by way of a Notice of Motion which in law is potent tool for originating a suit.”
8. The applicant’s case is that it rendered legal services to the respondent in Nairobi HCCOMM No. E295 of 2023 – Twiga Foods Limited v Freight In Time Limited. Following the provision of the legal services, the applicant filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 10 th June 2025 in Milimani HCCOMM Misc. App. No. E876 of 2025 - Osoro & Osoro Advocates v Freight In Time Limited. The said Bill of Costs was taxed by the Taxing Officer vide a ruling delivered on 14 th August 2025 in the sum of Kshs. 1,451,181.89/=, following which a Certificate of Costs was issued on 2 nd June 2026.
9. On perusal of the Court record, it is manifest that the respondent filed an application dated 2 nd September 2025 in HCCOMM Misc. App. No. E876 of 2025, wherein it sought to set aside the Taxing Officer’s decision contained in the ruling delivered on 14 th August 2025 with regards to item No. 1 of the Bill of Costs dated 24 th July 2025 and for the Court to review/re-assess the fees due to the said item. It is however noteworthy that the said reference was struck out for being incompetent in a ruling delivered on 12 th March 2026. Consequently, the Taxing Officer's decision remained undisturbed.
10. It is equally evident from the record that the Certificate of Taxation dated 2 nd June 2026 has neither been set aside nor altered. Further, following the striking out of the respondent's application dated 2 nd September 2025, there is no indication that the respondent filed a competent reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order or any other application seeking to review or vary the Taxing Officer's decision. Consequently, the Certificate of Taxation remains final and conclusive as to the amount payable to the applicant by the respondent pursuant to the provisions of section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
11. The Court further notes that the respondent has neither denied instructing the applicant nor disputed the existence of an advocate-client relationship. Notably, despite being duly served with the application herein, the respondent elected not to file any response. There is therefore no material before the Court suggesting that the retainer is in dispute. Accordingly, the Court finds that the statutory conditions prescribed under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act have been fully satisfied, thus the applicant is entitled to judgment for the certified sum.
12. The applicant has further prayed for interest on the taxed costs at the rate of 14% per annum from 14 th August 2025 until payment in full. Interest on Advocates Costs is provided for under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order which states as hereunder –
“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.”
13. The import of the foregoing is that interest on an Advocate's fees can only be charged after the lapse of one month from when the bill was delivered to the client, and the claim for interest should have been raised before the amount of the bill is paid or tendered in full.
14. In this case, although the applicant averred that a notice pursuant to Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order was duly issued, the Court has carefully perused the supporting affidavit and the annexures thereto and finds that no documentary evidence has been exhibited to demonstrate either the issuance of the notice or its service upon the respondent. In the absence of such evidence, the Court is unable to conclude that the applicant complied with the mandatory requirements of Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The prayer for interest at the rate of 14% per annum therefore cannot succeed.
15. Nevertheless, upon entry of judgment under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the certified costs assume the character of a judgment debt. Pursuant to section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court retains discretion to award interest on the judgment sum at Court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full. In the circumstances of this case, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise that discretion.
16. Accordingly, the applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated 4 th June 2026 is merited. In the premise, the Court issues the following orders –
i) The Certificate of Costs issued on 2 nd June 2026 is hereby adopted as a judgment of this Court;
ii) Judgment is entered for the applicant against the respondent in the sum of Kenya Shillings One Million Four Hundred and Fifty-One Thousand One Hundred and Eighty-One and Eighty-Nine Cents (Kshs. 1,451,181.89);
iii) The said sum shall attract interest at Court rates from the date of this judgment until payment in full; and
iv) Each party to bear its own costs.
17. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 28 TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
Delivered Virtually in the presence of-
Osoro for the Applicant
N/A for the Respondent
Susan Nzioka- Court Assistant
Page 1 of 6
-VERSUS-
FREIGHT IN TIME LIMITED.………..………...….….......................................RESPONDENT
1. Before me is a Notice of Motion application dated 4 th June 2026 filed by the applicant under the provisions of section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act, sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and all the enabling provisions of the law. The applicant sought orders that the Certificate of Taxation issued on 2 nd June 2026 be adopted as a judgment of the Court and that judgment be entered in its favour against the respondent for the sum certified therein and that the taxed costs attract interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 14 th August 2025, being the date of filing and delivery of the Bill of Costs, until payment in full.
2. The application is premised on the grounds on the face of the motion and is supported by an affidavit sworn on the same day by Duncan Nyang’wara Osoro, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya practicing in the name and style of the applicant law firm. Mr. Osoro averred that the applicant acted for the respondent in Nairobi HCCOMM No. E295 of 2023 - Twiga Foods Limited v Freight In Time Limited, a claim for compensation in the sum of Kshs. 36,700,629/= together with other reliefs. He stated that following the provision of legal services, the applicant filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 10 th June 2025 in Milimani HCCOMM Misc. App. No. E876 of 2025 - Osoro & Osoro Advocates v Freight In Time Limited, which was taxed in a ruling delivered on 14 th August 2025 at Kshs. 1,451,181.89/=.
3. Mr. Osoro deposed that a notice under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order was duly issued and that a Certificate of Costs was subsequently issued on 2 nd June 2026, which certificate has neither been set aside nor varied. He asserted that despite service of the Certificate of Costs upon the respondent, the respondent failed, refused and/or neglected to settle the certified sum, thereby necessitating the instant application. In the premise, he averred that the applicant is entitled under section 51 of the Advocates Act to have the Certificate of Costs adopted as a judgment of the Court to facilitate its enforcement.
4. Upon perusal of the Court record and the Case Tracking System, it is manifest that although the respondent was duly served with the pleadings herein, he neither filed a response nor tendered written submissions in opposition thereto.
5. Upon consideration of the instant application, the grounds on its face and the affidavit in support thereof, together with the written submissions by Counsel for the applicant, the issue that arises for determination is whether the application herein is merited.
6. It is now well settled that this Court is vested with jurisdiction to enter judgment where an Advocate - Client Bill of Costs has been taxed, a Certificate of Costs has been issued by the Taxing Officer, and the retainer is not in dispute, in accordance with the provisions of section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, which states that -
“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.”
7. In the case of Lesinko Njororge & Gathogo Advocates v Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd [2021] KEHC 9046 (KLR) the Court explained the circumstances under which judgment may be entered on a Certificate of Taxation as follows –
“The procedure provided in section 51(2) of the Advocates Act aids expeditious disposal of cases relating to recovery of advocate-client costs as long as: (1) the costs have been taxed by and certified under the hand of the taxing master by a Certificate of Costs; (2) the Certificate of Costs has not been set aside or stayed or appealed against on a reference filed upon it; and (3) there is no dispute on retainer. In such case, judgment is ordinarily entered in the sum in the Certificate of Costs upon application by the advocate. The application may be commenced by way of a Notice of Motion which in law is potent tool for originating a suit.”
8. The applicant’s case is that it rendered legal services to the respondent in Nairobi HCCOMM No. E295 of 2023 – Twiga Foods Limited v Freight In Time Limited. Following the provision of the legal services, the applicant filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 10 th June 2025 in Milimani HCCOMM Misc. App. No. E876 of 2025 - Osoro & Osoro Advocates v Freight In Time Limited. The said Bill of Costs was taxed by the Taxing Officer vide a ruling delivered on 14 th August 2025 in the sum of Kshs. 1,451,181.89/=, following which a Certificate of Costs was issued on 2 nd June 2026.
9. On perusal of the Court record, it is manifest that the respondent filed an application dated 2 nd September 2025 in HCCOMM Misc. App. No. E876 of 2025, wherein it sought to set aside the Taxing Officer’s decision contained in the ruling delivered on 14 th August 2025 with regards to item No. 1 of the Bill of Costs dated 24 th July 2025 and for the Court to review/re-assess the fees due to the said item. It is however noteworthy that the said reference was struck out for being incompetent in a ruling delivered on 12 th March 2026. Consequently, the Taxing Officer's decision remained undisturbed.
10. It is equally evident from the record that the Certificate of Taxation dated 2 nd June 2026 has neither been set aside nor altered. Further, following the striking out of the respondent's application dated 2 nd September 2025, there is no indication that the respondent filed a competent reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order or any other application seeking to review or vary the Taxing Officer's decision. Consequently, the Certificate of Taxation remains final and conclusive as to the amount payable to the applicant by the respondent pursuant to the provisions of section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
11. The Court further notes that the respondent has neither denied instructing the applicant nor disputed the existence of an advocate-client relationship. Notably, despite being duly served with the application herein, the respondent elected not to file any response. There is therefore no material before the Court suggesting that the retainer is in dispute. Accordingly, the Court finds that the statutory conditions prescribed under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act have been fully satisfied, thus the applicant is entitled to judgment for the certified sum.
12. The applicant has further prayed for interest on the taxed costs at the rate of 14% per annum from 14 th August 2025 until payment in full. Interest on Advocates Costs is provided for under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order which states as hereunder –
“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.”
13. The import of the foregoing is that interest on an Advocate's fees can only be charged after the lapse of one month from when the bill was delivered to the client, and the claim for interest should have been raised before the amount of the bill is paid or tendered in full.
14. In this case, although the applicant averred that a notice pursuant to Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order was duly issued, the Court has carefully perused the supporting affidavit and the annexures thereto and finds that no documentary evidence has been exhibited to demonstrate either the issuance of the notice or its service upon the respondent. In the absence of such evidence, the Court is unable to conclude that the applicant complied with the mandatory requirements of Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The prayer for interest at the rate of 14% per annum therefore cannot succeed.
15. Nevertheless, upon entry of judgment under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the certified costs assume the character of a judgment debt. Pursuant to section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court retains discretion to award interest on the judgment sum at Court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full. In the circumstances of this case, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise that discretion.
16. Accordingly, the applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated 4 th June 2026 is merited. In the premise, the Court issues the following orders –
i) The Certificate of Costs issued on 2 nd June 2026 is hereby adopted as a judgment of this Court;
ii) Judgment is entered for the applicant against the respondent in the sum of Kenya Shillings One Million Four Hundred and Fifty-One Thousand One Hundred and Eighty-One and Eighty-Nine Cents (Kshs. 1,451,181.89);
iii) The said sum shall attract interest at Court rates from the date of this judgment until payment in full; and
iv) Each party to bear its own costs.
17. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 28 TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
Delivered Virtually in the presence of-
Osoro for the Applicant
N/A for the Respondent
Susan Nzioka- Court Assistant
Page 1 of 6