1. Litigation, much like a protracted war, rarely ends when the big guns fall silent. The fiercest battles are frequently fought long after the substantive war has concluded. These are the battles for costs. The matter before me is exactly that. It is a dispute for the recovery and enforcement of a certificate of taxation as between an advocate and a client.
2. The Applicant approaches the Court seeking to convert a Certificate of Taxation into an enforceable judgment. The Respondent vehemently opposes the move. It erects a statutory shield. It claims the absolute protection afforded to government entities under the Government Proceedings Act. This dispute calls upon the Court to untangle the intersection between the Advocates Act, the Advocates Remuneration Order, and the Government Proceedings Act. It is a matter of statutory sequencing and legal propriety.
Background Facts
3. The genesis of this dispute lies in the Court of Appeal. The Respondent herein had filed an appeal against the Applicant in Civil Appeal No. E264 of 2020; National Land Commission vs. Prof. Tom Ojienda & Associates. The Applicant subsequently filed an application to strike out the record of appeal. On 8th December, 2023, the Court of Appeal struck out the appeal. Costs were awarded to the Applicant.
4. Following the appellate Court's decision, the Applicant drew and filed a Party and Party Bill of Costs. The Bill was dated 14th December, 2023. It sought a total sum of Kshs. 6,830,916.67. The Bill was served upon the Respondent on 8th March, 2024.
5. The Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal rendered a Ruling on Taxation on 4th June, 2024. The Bill of Costs was taxed and allowed at Kshs. 3,181,972.50. The Applicant subsequently paid the requisite taxation fees of Kshs. 151,522.50. A Certificate of Taxation was extracted and issued on 17th January, 2025. The taxed sum remains unpaid to date.
6. The Applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 20th January, 2025. The Application is brought under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, and other enabling provisions of the law. The Applicant seeks the following orders:
1. THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to enter Judgment for the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs. 3,181,972.50/= (Kenya Shillings Three Million, One Hundred and Eighty-One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy-Two and Fifty Cents Only) as appears on the Certificate of Taxation issued on 17th January, 2025 together with interest, to run from one month of service of the Bill of Costs on the Respondent, that is from 8th April, 2024 until payment in full.
2. THAT the costs of this Application be provided for.
7. The Applicant filed submissions dated 2nd April, 2025, and further submissions dated 13th February, 2026. The Applicant posits that under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act; a Certificate of Taxation is final unless altered or set aside. The Applicant contends that since the Certificate of Taxation issued on 17th January, 2025 remains unchallenged, the Court is obligated to enter judgment. The Applicant relies on the aforementioned A.M. KIMANI & CO. ADVOCATES v KENINDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD [2006] KEHC 885 (KLR) and Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N K Brothers Limited [2014] KEHC 8685 (KLR) decisions. On the issue of interest, the Applicant relies on Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The Applicant argues for an entitlement to interest at 14% per annum from 8th April, 2024.
8. The Respondent filed Grounds of Opposition and Submissions dated 2nd February, 2026. The Respondent concedes that the Bill of Costs was taxed. However, the Respondent raises a vigorous defence. It argues that the Application is premature, incompetent, and fatally defective. The Respondent submits that it is a government entity. Therefore, Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act cannot be read in isolation. It must be read subject to Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act which states as follows:
“Where in any civil proceedings by or against the Government, or in proceedings in connection with any arbitration in which the Government is a party, any order (including an order for costs) is made by any court in favour of any person against the Government, or against a Government department, or against an officer of the Government as such, the proper officer of the court shall, on an application in that behalf made by or on behalf of that person at any time after the expiration of twenty-one days from the date of the order or, in case the order provides for the payment of costs and the costs require to be taxed, at any time after the costs have been taxed, whichever is the later, issue to that person a certificate in the prescribed form containing particulars of the order:
Provided that, if the court so directs, a separate certificate shall be issued with respect to the costs (if any) ordered to be paid to the applicant.”
9. The Respondent contends that no execution or entry of judgment can occur until a Certificate of Order against the Government is extracted and served. The Respondent relies on the Republic v Attorney General & another Exparte James Alfred Koroso [2013] KEHC 90 (KLR) and Republic V Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security Exparte Fredrick Manoah Egunza [2012] KEHC 1643 (KLR). The Respondent further argues that interest against the government is not automatic and is restricted by Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act. Section 21(4) states as follows:
“Save as aforesaid, no execution or attachment or process in the nature thereof shall be issued out of any such court for enforcing payment by the Government of any such money or costs as aforesaid, and no person shall be individually liable under any order for the payment by the Government, or any Government department, or any officer of the Government as such, of any money or costs.”
10. In rejoinder, the Applicant submits that the Respondent has fundamentally misconstrued the procedural sequence. The Applicant argues that Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act only applies after judgment has been entered. Without an entered judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, a Certificate of Order against the Government cannot be extracted. The Applicant asserts it is not seeking execution at this stage. It merely seeks the entry of judgment.
Issues for Determination
11. The Court has carefully considered the Notice of Motion, the Supporting Affidavit, the Grounds of Opposition, the rival written submissions, and the authorities cited by both parties. The Court has considered the oral highlights by Counsel for the parties. The Court frames two issues for determination:
(i) Whether the application is premature for non-compliance with Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
(ii) Whether the Applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
Analysis
12. The process of adoption and enforcement of an Advocates Certificate of costs is a simpler and expeditious process of recovery of costs. It avoids the longer and rigorous process of filing a suit to recover such costs.
(i) Whether the application is premature for non-compliance with Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
13. The core of the Respondent's objection is procedural. The Respondent asserts that as a government entity, it is insulated by Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act. It argues that the Applicant must extract a Certificate of Order Against the Government before moving this Court.
14. It is imperative to first establish the legal status of the Respondent. The National Land Commission is an independent constitutional commission established under Article 67 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Kenya definitively settled its status in In re National Land Commission [2025] KESC 12 (KLR). The apex Court affirmed that constitutional commissions are encompassed within the definition of "government". They are fully protected by the Government Proceedings Act. The Respondent is therefore a government entity.
15. Does this status render the instant application premature? The answer requires a careful reading of the relevant statutes and an examination of recent jurisprudential conflicts within the Superior Courts.
16. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act provides the mechanism for converting a Certificate of Taxation into a judgment. It is worded in permissive but highly directive language. It states:
"The Certificate of 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.".
17. Conversely, Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act regulates the satisfaction of orders against the government. It mandates a special procedure. A successful litigant must extract a Certificate of Order against the Government and serve it upon the relevant accounting officer. No execution or attachment can issue directly against the government.
18. Recently, the High Court rendered two conflicting decisions regarding Section 21. In Absa Bank Kenya PLC v Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation [2024] eKLR, Sifuna J. declared Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act unconstitutional, terming it a "colonial relic" that offered preferential treatment to the government. However, a parallel bench in Tom Ojienda & Associates v Nairobi City County; Cooperative Bank of Kenya (Garnishee) [2024] KEELC 1662 (KLR) explicitly disagreed with that finding, holding that Section 21 remains in full force.
19. This conflict was conclusively resolved by the Court of Appeal in Five Star Agencies Ltd & another v National Land Commission & 2 others [2024] KECA 439 (KLR). The Appellate Court reiterated that Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act remains good law. Government assets cannot be attached in satisfaction of a decree. The only method of execution is obtaining a Certificate of Order against the Government.
20. Having established that Section 21 is valid and binding, the question remains: does it bar the entry of judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act? The Respondent attempts to use Section 21 as a shield against the entry of judgment itself. This argument puts the cart before the horse.
21. The statutory sequence is sequential and unambiguous. A Certificate of Taxation is not a decree. It is merely a certification of costs. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act is the statutory bridge that converts the Certificate of Taxation into a judgment. Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act is the post-judgment mechanism for execution and satisfaction of that judgment.
22. One cannot legally or practically extract a Certificate of Order against the Government under Section 21 without a crystallized judgment or decree. This sequence was clearly elucidated in Lesinko Njoroge & Gathogo Advocates v Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd [2021] eKLR. The Court stated:
"The procedure provided in Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act aids expeditious disposal of cases relating to recovery of Advocates-client costs as long as (1) the costs have been taxed and certified under the hand of the taxing master by a certificate of cost; (2) the certificate has not been set aside or altered by the court; and (3) the retainer is not disputed. In such a case a Judgment is ordinarily entered in the sum in the certificate of costs upon application by the advocate.".
23. The authorities cited by the Respondent, including the Koroso and Egunza decisions, deal explicitly with the prohibition of execution and attachment against the government. They do not prohibit the entry of judgment itself.
24. The Applicant correctly submits that it is not seeking execution at this stage. It is seeking the entry of judgment. Once judgment is entered, the Applicant will be required by law to invoke Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act to secure payment. The Respondent's objection on grounds of prematurity conflates the establishment of a right with the enforcement of that right. The objection is legally unsustainable.
25. The facts are uncontroverted. The Deputy Registrar taxed the Bill of Costs on 4th June, 2024. A Certificate of Taxation was issued on 17th January, 2025. The Respondent has not produced any evidence of a pending reference, an order setting aside the taxation, or a dispute regarding the retainer. Consequently, the Certificate of Taxation is final. The Applicant is entitled to judgment for the certified sum of Kshs. 3,181,972.50.
(ii) Whether the Applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
26. The final issue is highly contested. The Applicant seeks interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 8th April, 2024 until payment in full. The Applicant anchors this claim on Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The rule states:
"An advocate may charge interest at 14% 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.".
27. The Respondent counters that Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act restricts the award of interest against the government. Furthermore, the Respondent asserts that Rule 7 is not automatic and has not been properly invoked.
28. The application of Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order has been the subject of extensive appellate and High Court jurisprudence. The Court of Appeal in Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority [2021] KECA 587 (KLR) provided definitive and binding guidance on this issue. The Appellate Court held that an advocate seeking to recover the statutory interest of 14% per annum under Rule 7 must expressly include the claim for interest in the fee note and/or the Bill of Costs.
29. The Court of Appeal stated the following in the Otieno, Ragot case:
"The rule (rule 7) deals with interest chargeable by an advocate in respect of its claim for disbursement and costs following submissions of a fee note... Additionally, it is distinctive that a review of the applicant's bill of costs does not disclose that the applicant included a charge for '… interest at 14% per annum on his (her) disbursements and costs…' in the bill of costs. As the sole basis upon which computations of amounts due to an applicant are determined by the taxing officer, the element of interest defined by rule 7 ought to have been included in the bill of costs, but it was not. This omission would thereby negate the application of rule 7, and instead render the bill liable to an exercise by the court of its discretion under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act.".
30. This position is echoed in Amondi & Co Advocates v County Government of Kisumu [2022] KEHC 1070 (KLR), which clarified that interest does not become automatically chargeable after the lapse of one month. The claim must be explicitly raised before the bill is settled, ideally on the face of the bill itself.
31. The Court has meticulously perused the Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 14th December, 2023, which forms the substratum of this application. The Bill contains twenty-eight (28) distinct items outlining instructions, perusals, attendances, and disbursements. Nowhere within the four corners of that Bill of Costs did the Applicant insert a claim or notification for interest at 14% per annum under Rule 7. The claim is being raised for the first time in the instant Notice of Motion.
32. Bound by the doctrine of stare decisis and the clear precedent in Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority, the omission of the interest claim from the Bill of Costs renders Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order inapplicable. The prayer for interest at 14% per annum from 8th April, 2024, is therefore declined.
33. However, equity and the law demand that a successful litigant be compensated for being kept out of their money. Where Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order falls away, the Court retains inherent and statutory discretion under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act to award interest at Court rates. Section 26 grants the Court wide discretion to order interest at such rate as it deems reasonable on the principal sum adjudged.
34. The taxation process concluded with the issuance of the Certificate of Taxation on 17th January, 2025. It is from this date that the debt fully crystallized and was certified under the seal of the Court. In the exercise of the Court's discretion under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed sum at Court rates (12% per annum) from the date the Certificate of Taxation was issued until payment in full.
35. The machinery of justice must operate logically. The Applicant has satisfied the conditions precedent under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. The Respondent's reliance on the Government Proceedings Act to block the entry of judgment is procedurally premature. It conflates the establishment of a judgment with its eventual execution. The Applicant is entitled to the fruits of the taxation, tempered only by the strict evidentiary requirements for statutory interest.
36. As to costs the same follow the event and lie at the discretion of this Court. The Court is persuaded that the Applicant is deserving of costs as a successful party. The same are assessed at Kshs. 50,000/=.
Determination
37. Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 20th January, 2025, is merited and is HEREBY allowed in the following terms:
1. Judgment is HEREBY entered for the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs. 3,181,972.50 (Kenya Shillings Three Million, One Hundred and Eighty-One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy-Two and Fifty Cents Only) as certified in the Certificate of Taxation issued on 17th January, 2025.
2. The adjudged sum of Kshs. 3,181,972.50 shall attract interest at Court rates of 12% per annum from 17th January, 2025 (being the date when the certificate was issued) until payment in full.
3. The Applicant is HEREBY awarded the costs of this Application assessed at Kshs 50,000/=.
38. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MILIMANI THIS 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
NJOROGE BENJAMIN K.
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Miss Ojil for Miss Musando for the Advocate/Applicant.
Miss Mwanyika for the Client/Respondent.
Mr. John Paul - Court Assistant.
2. The Applicant approaches the Court seeking to convert a Certificate of Taxation into an enforceable judgment. The Respondent vehemently opposes the move. It erects a statutory shield. It claims the absolute protection afforded to government entities under the Government Proceedings Act. This dispute calls upon the Court to untangle the intersection between the Advocates Act, the Advocates Remuneration Order, and the Government Proceedings Act. It is a matter of statutory sequencing and legal propriety.
Background Facts
3. The genesis of this dispute lies in the Court of Appeal. The Respondent herein had filed an appeal against the Applicant in Civil Appeal No. E264 of 2020; National Land Commission vs. Prof. Tom Ojienda & Associates. The Applicant subsequently filed an application to strike out the record of appeal. On 8th December, 2023, the Court of Appeal struck out the appeal. Costs were awarded to the Applicant.
4. Following the appellate Court's decision, the Applicant drew and filed a Party and Party Bill of Costs. The Bill was dated 14th December, 2023. It sought a total sum of Kshs. 6,830,916.67. The Bill was served upon the Respondent on 8th March, 2024.
5. The Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal rendered a Ruling on Taxation on 4th June, 2024. The Bill of Costs was taxed and allowed at Kshs. 3,181,972.50. The Applicant subsequently paid the requisite taxation fees of Kshs. 151,522.50. A Certificate of Taxation was extracted and issued on 17th January, 2025. The taxed sum remains unpaid to date.
6. The Applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 20th January, 2025. The Application is brought under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, and other enabling provisions of the law. The Applicant seeks the following orders:
1. THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to enter Judgment for the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs. 3,181,972.50/= (Kenya Shillings Three Million, One Hundred and Eighty-One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy-Two and Fifty Cents Only) as appears on the Certificate of Taxation issued on 17th January, 2025 together with interest, to run from one month of service of the Bill of Costs on the Respondent, that is from 8th April, 2024 until payment in full.
2. THAT the costs of this Application be provided for.
7. The Applicant filed submissions dated 2nd April, 2025, and further submissions dated 13th February, 2026. The Applicant posits that under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act; a Certificate of Taxation is final unless altered or set aside. The Applicant contends that since the Certificate of Taxation issued on 17th January, 2025 remains unchallenged, the Court is obligated to enter judgment. The Applicant relies on the aforementioned A.M. KIMANI & CO. ADVOCATES v KENINDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD [2006] KEHC 885 (KLR) and Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N K Brothers Limited [2014] KEHC 8685 (KLR) decisions. On the issue of interest, the Applicant relies on Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The Applicant argues for an entitlement to interest at 14% per annum from 8th April, 2024.
8. The Respondent filed Grounds of Opposition and Submissions dated 2nd February, 2026. The Respondent concedes that the Bill of Costs was taxed. However, the Respondent raises a vigorous defence. It argues that the Application is premature, incompetent, and fatally defective. The Respondent submits that it is a government entity. Therefore, Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act cannot be read in isolation. It must be read subject to Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act which states as follows:
“Where in any civil proceedings by or against the Government, or in proceedings in connection with any arbitration in which the Government is a party, any order (including an order for costs) is made by any court in favour of any person against the Government, or against a Government department, or against an officer of the Government as such, the proper officer of the court shall, on an application in that behalf made by or on behalf of that person at any time after the expiration of twenty-one days from the date of the order or, in case the order provides for the payment of costs and the costs require to be taxed, at any time after the costs have been taxed, whichever is the later, issue to that person a certificate in the prescribed form containing particulars of the order:
Provided that, if the court so directs, a separate certificate shall be issued with respect to the costs (if any) ordered to be paid to the applicant.”
9. The Respondent contends that no execution or entry of judgment can occur until a Certificate of Order against the Government is extracted and served. The Respondent relies on the Republic v Attorney General & another Exparte James Alfred Koroso [2013] KEHC 90 (KLR) and Republic V Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security Exparte Fredrick Manoah Egunza [2012] KEHC 1643 (KLR). The Respondent further argues that interest against the government is not automatic and is restricted by Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act. Section 21(4) states as follows:
“Save as aforesaid, no execution or attachment or process in the nature thereof shall be issued out of any such court for enforcing payment by the Government of any such money or costs as aforesaid, and no person shall be individually liable under any order for the payment by the Government, or any Government department, or any officer of the Government as such, of any money or costs.”
10. In rejoinder, the Applicant submits that the Respondent has fundamentally misconstrued the procedural sequence. The Applicant argues that Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act only applies after judgment has been entered. Without an entered judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, a Certificate of Order against the Government cannot be extracted. The Applicant asserts it is not seeking execution at this stage. It merely seeks the entry of judgment.
Issues for Determination
11. The Court has carefully considered the Notice of Motion, the Supporting Affidavit, the Grounds of Opposition, the rival written submissions, and the authorities cited by both parties. The Court has considered the oral highlights by Counsel for the parties. The Court frames two issues for determination:
(i) Whether the application is premature for non-compliance with Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
(ii) Whether the Applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
Analysis
12. The process of adoption and enforcement of an Advocates Certificate of costs is a simpler and expeditious process of recovery of costs. It avoids the longer and rigorous process of filing a suit to recover such costs.
(i) Whether the application is premature for non-compliance with Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
13. The core of the Respondent's objection is procedural. The Respondent asserts that as a government entity, it is insulated by Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act. It argues that the Applicant must extract a Certificate of Order Against the Government before moving this Court.
14. It is imperative to first establish the legal status of the Respondent. The National Land Commission is an independent constitutional commission established under Article 67 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Kenya definitively settled its status in In re National Land Commission [2025] KESC 12 (KLR). The apex Court affirmed that constitutional commissions are encompassed within the definition of "government". They are fully protected by the Government Proceedings Act. The Respondent is therefore a government entity.
15. Does this status render the instant application premature? The answer requires a careful reading of the relevant statutes and an examination of recent jurisprudential conflicts within the Superior Courts.
16. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act provides the mechanism for converting a Certificate of Taxation into a judgment. It is worded in permissive but highly directive language. It states:
"The Certificate of 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.".
17. Conversely, Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act regulates the satisfaction of orders against the government. It mandates a special procedure. A successful litigant must extract a Certificate of Order against the Government and serve it upon the relevant accounting officer. No execution or attachment can issue directly against the government.
18. Recently, the High Court rendered two conflicting decisions regarding Section 21. In Absa Bank Kenya PLC v Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation [2024] eKLR, Sifuna J. declared Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act unconstitutional, terming it a "colonial relic" that offered preferential treatment to the government. However, a parallel bench in Tom Ojienda & Associates v Nairobi City County; Cooperative Bank of Kenya (Garnishee) [2024] KEELC 1662 (KLR) explicitly disagreed with that finding, holding that Section 21 remains in full force.
19. This conflict was conclusively resolved by the Court of Appeal in Five Star Agencies Ltd & another v National Land Commission & 2 others [2024] KECA 439 (KLR). The Appellate Court reiterated that Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act remains good law. Government assets cannot be attached in satisfaction of a decree. The only method of execution is obtaining a Certificate of Order against the Government.
20. Having established that Section 21 is valid and binding, the question remains: does it bar the entry of judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act? The Respondent attempts to use Section 21 as a shield against the entry of judgment itself. This argument puts the cart before the horse.
21. The statutory sequence is sequential and unambiguous. A Certificate of Taxation is not a decree. It is merely a certification of costs. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act is the statutory bridge that converts the Certificate of Taxation into a judgment. Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act is the post-judgment mechanism for execution and satisfaction of that judgment.
22. One cannot legally or practically extract a Certificate of Order against the Government under Section 21 without a crystallized judgment or decree. This sequence was clearly elucidated in Lesinko Njoroge & Gathogo Advocates v Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd [2021] eKLR. The Court stated:
"The procedure provided in Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act aids expeditious disposal of cases relating to recovery of Advocates-client costs as long as (1) the costs have been taxed and certified under the hand of the taxing master by a certificate of cost; (2) the certificate has not been set aside or altered by the court; and (3) the retainer is not disputed. In such a case a Judgment is ordinarily entered in the sum in the certificate of costs upon application by the advocate.".
23. The authorities cited by the Respondent, including the Koroso and Egunza decisions, deal explicitly with the prohibition of execution and attachment against the government. They do not prohibit the entry of judgment itself.
24. The Applicant correctly submits that it is not seeking execution at this stage. It is seeking the entry of judgment. Once judgment is entered, the Applicant will be required by law to invoke Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act to secure payment. The Respondent's objection on grounds of prematurity conflates the establishment of a right with the enforcement of that right. The objection is legally unsustainable.
25. The facts are uncontroverted. The Deputy Registrar taxed the Bill of Costs on 4th June, 2024. A Certificate of Taxation was issued on 17th January, 2025. The Respondent has not produced any evidence of a pending reference, an order setting aside the taxation, or a dispute regarding the retainer. Consequently, the Certificate of Taxation is final. The Applicant is entitled to judgment for the certified sum of Kshs. 3,181,972.50.
(ii) Whether the Applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
26. The final issue is highly contested. The Applicant seeks interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 8th April, 2024 until payment in full. The Applicant anchors this claim on Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The rule states:
"An advocate may charge interest at 14% 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.".
27. The Respondent counters that Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act restricts the award of interest against the government. Furthermore, the Respondent asserts that Rule 7 is not automatic and has not been properly invoked.
28. The application of Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order has been the subject of extensive appellate and High Court jurisprudence. The Court of Appeal in Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority [2021] KECA 587 (KLR) provided definitive and binding guidance on this issue. The Appellate Court held that an advocate seeking to recover the statutory interest of 14% per annum under Rule 7 must expressly include the claim for interest in the fee note and/or the Bill of Costs.
29. The Court of Appeal stated the following in the Otieno, Ragot case:
"The rule (rule 7) deals with interest chargeable by an advocate in respect of its claim for disbursement and costs following submissions of a fee note... Additionally, it is distinctive that a review of the applicant's bill of costs does not disclose that the applicant included a charge for '… interest at 14% per annum on his (her) disbursements and costs…' in the bill of costs. As the sole basis upon which computations of amounts due to an applicant are determined by the taxing officer, the element of interest defined by rule 7 ought to have been included in the bill of costs, but it was not. This omission would thereby negate the application of rule 7, and instead render the bill liable to an exercise by the court of its discretion under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act.".
30. This position is echoed in Amondi & Co Advocates v County Government of Kisumu [2022] KEHC 1070 (KLR), which clarified that interest does not become automatically chargeable after the lapse of one month. The claim must be explicitly raised before the bill is settled, ideally on the face of the bill itself.
31. The Court has meticulously perused the Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 14th December, 2023, which forms the substratum of this application. The Bill contains twenty-eight (28) distinct items outlining instructions, perusals, attendances, and disbursements. Nowhere within the four corners of that Bill of Costs did the Applicant insert a claim or notification for interest at 14% per annum under Rule 7. The claim is being raised for the first time in the instant Notice of Motion.
32. Bound by the doctrine of stare decisis and the clear precedent in Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority, the omission of the interest claim from the Bill of Costs renders Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order inapplicable. The prayer for interest at 14% per annum from 8th April, 2024, is therefore declined.
33. However, equity and the law demand that a successful litigant be compensated for being kept out of their money. Where Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order falls away, the Court retains inherent and statutory discretion under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act to award interest at Court rates. Section 26 grants the Court wide discretion to order interest at such rate as it deems reasonable on the principal sum adjudged.
34. The taxation process concluded with the issuance of the Certificate of Taxation on 17th January, 2025. It is from this date that the debt fully crystallized and was certified under the seal of the Court. In the exercise of the Court's discretion under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed sum at Court rates (12% per annum) from the date the Certificate of Taxation was issued until payment in full.
35. The machinery of justice must operate logically. The Applicant has satisfied the conditions precedent under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. The Respondent's reliance on the Government Proceedings Act to block the entry of judgment is procedurally premature. It conflates the establishment of a judgment with its eventual execution. The Applicant is entitled to the fruits of the taxation, tempered only by the strict evidentiary requirements for statutory interest.
36. As to costs the same follow the event and lie at the discretion of this Court. The Court is persuaded that the Applicant is deserving of costs as a successful party. The same are assessed at Kshs. 50,000/=.
Determination
37. Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 20th January, 2025, is merited and is HEREBY allowed in the following terms:
1. Judgment is HEREBY entered for the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs. 3,181,972.50 (Kenya Shillings Three Million, One Hundred and Eighty-One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy-Two and Fifty Cents Only) as certified in the Certificate of Taxation issued on 17th January, 2025.
2. The adjudged sum of Kshs. 3,181,972.50 shall attract interest at Court rates of 12% per annum from 17th January, 2025 (being the date when the certificate was issued) until payment in full.
3. The Applicant is HEREBY awarded the costs of this Application assessed at Kshs 50,000/=.
38. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MILIMANI THIS 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
NJOROGE BENJAMIN K.
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Miss Ojil for Miss Musando for the Advocate/Applicant.
Miss Mwanyika for the Client/Respondent.
Mr. John Paul - Court Assistant.