1. Before this Court is an application dated 15 th December, 2025 which is premised under Sections 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
2. The Applicant is seeking the following orders from this Court;
a) Spent
b) That judgment be entered for the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs. Two hundred thousand thirty seven shillings (Kshs. 200,037.00) being amount certified by the Deputy Registrar of this Court in Certificate of Costs dated 9 th December, 2025;
c) That interest be awarded at court rates from the date of taxation, being 21 st November, 2025 until payment in full.
d) That the costs of the application be awarded to the Applicant.
3. The instant application is anchored on the grounds set out on the face thereof and in the supporting affidavit sworn by Otieno Clinton, in his capacity as an advocate in the Applicant firm.
4. The deponent stated that the Respondent instructed him to represent her in Children’s Court Case No. E233 of 2024 EAK vs GKO.
5. The Applicant stated that it filed the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs against the Respondent and the Taxing Master taxed Bill of Costs on 21 st November, 2025 at Kshs. 200,037.00. The taxation has not been set aside, and it is not under challenge in the current proceedings.
6. The Respondent was served as evidenced by the affidavit of service dated 2 nd March 2026.
7. After reviewing the application and the supporting documents presented to the Court, the key issue for determination is whether the Applicant is entitled to the orders sought.
8. Section 51 of the Advocates Act stipulates as follows:
i. ………..
ii. 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 of that judgement be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.
9. In the case of Otieno Ragot & Co. Advocates v Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd [2020] KEHC 8166 (KLR) the Court proclaimed as hereunder:
“And as long as the Certificate of Taxation has not been varied or set aside the sums thereon certified are final.”
10. Similarly, in the case of Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N. K. Brothers Limited [2014] eKLR the Court observed that:
“ 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 .
11. Upon reviewing the pleadings and the Court record, this Court is satisfied that the Certificate of Taxation by the Taxing Officer dated 17 th December 2025 is uncontested. This Certificate was issued to correct the error in the Certificate of Taxation dated 9th December, 2025 which indicated the due costs as Party and party instead of Advocate-Client.
12. The Respondent has not sought a review of the ruling by filing a Reference in a competent court, nor has the ruling been set aside, altered, varied, or reviewed. Furthermore, no appeal has been filed.
13. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act, the Advocate/Applicant herein is entitled to Judgment for the amount indicated in the certificate of taxation that was issued on 17 th December, 2025.
14. In light of the above, the court determines that no further action is necessary from this Court, except to accept the Certificate of Taxation and issue the judgment as requested against the Respondent.
15. Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order gives the Client 30 days from the delivery of the bill before interest can apply. In Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates v County Government of Nairobi (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E027 of 2020) [2025 ] , the court observed thus:
20. 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.
21. 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.
16. The claim on interest issue was not included in the itemized Bill of Costs, and there is no evidence that it was raised with the client prior to the filing of the Bill of Costs.
17. The Court makes the following orders:
a. The Certificate of Costs dated 17 th December, 2025 is hereby entered as the judgment of the court in the sum of Kshs. 200,037.00/=.
b. The Applicant is hereby awarded further costs of Kshs. 3,500.00/- being the costs of the application.
c. Prayer on interest fails.
18. It is so Ordered.
2. The Applicant is seeking the following orders from this Court;
a) Spent
b) That judgment be entered for the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs. Two hundred thousand thirty seven shillings (Kshs. 200,037.00) being amount certified by the Deputy Registrar of this Court in Certificate of Costs dated 9 th December, 2025;
c) That interest be awarded at court rates from the date of taxation, being 21 st November, 2025 until payment in full.
d) That the costs of the application be awarded to the Applicant.
3. The instant application is anchored on the grounds set out on the face thereof and in the supporting affidavit sworn by Otieno Clinton, in his capacity as an advocate in the Applicant firm.
4. The deponent stated that the Respondent instructed him to represent her in Children’s Court Case No. E233 of 2024 EAK vs GKO.
5. The Applicant stated that it filed the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs against the Respondent and the Taxing Master taxed Bill of Costs on 21 st November, 2025 at Kshs. 200,037.00. The taxation has not been set aside, and it is not under challenge in the current proceedings.
6. The Respondent was served as evidenced by the affidavit of service dated 2 nd March 2026.
7. After reviewing the application and the supporting documents presented to the Court, the key issue for determination is whether the Applicant is entitled to the orders sought.
8. Section 51 of the Advocates Act stipulates as follows:
i. ………..
ii. 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 of that judgement be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.
9. In the case of Otieno Ragot & Co. Advocates v Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd [2020] KEHC 8166 (KLR) the Court proclaimed as hereunder:
“And as long as the Certificate of Taxation has not been varied or set aside the sums thereon certified are final.”
10. Similarly, in the case of Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N. K. Brothers Limited [2014] eKLR the Court observed that:
“ 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 .
11. Upon reviewing the pleadings and the Court record, this Court is satisfied that the Certificate of Taxation by the Taxing Officer dated 17 th December 2025 is uncontested. This Certificate was issued to correct the error in the Certificate of Taxation dated 9th December, 2025 which indicated the due costs as Party and party instead of Advocate-Client.
12. The Respondent has not sought a review of the ruling by filing a Reference in a competent court, nor has the ruling been set aside, altered, varied, or reviewed. Furthermore, no appeal has been filed.
13. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act, the Advocate/Applicant herein is entitled to Judgment for the amount indicated in the certificate of taxation that was issued on 17 th December, 2025.
14. In light of the above, the court determines that no further action is necessary from this Court, except to accept the Certificate of Taxation and issue the judgment as requested against the Respondent.
15. Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order gives the Client 30 days from the delivery of the bill before interest can apply. In Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates v County Government of Nairobi (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E027 of 2020) [2025 ] , the court observed thus:
20. 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.
21. 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.
16. The claim on interest issue was not included in the itemized Bill of Costs, and there is no evidence that it was raised with the client prior to the filing of the Bill of Costs.
17. The Court makes the following orders:
a. The Certificate of Costs dated 17 th December, 2025 is hereby entered as the judgment of the court in the sum of Kshs. 200,037.00/=.
b. The Applicant is hereby awarded further costs of Kshs. 3,500.00/- being the costs of the application.
c. Prayer on interest fails.
18. It is so Ordered.