Skip to content
JudgmentS.m.chege T/a S.m.chege & Co.advocates VS Corporate Insurance Co Ltd2 min read

S.m.chege T/a S.m.chege & Co.advocates VS Corporate Insurance Co Ltd

High Court at Milimani High Court · · Githiru Freda Mugambi

Background and introduction

1. This Ruling is in respect to the Notice of Motion application dated 14th August 2024. The application seeks that this court enters judgement for the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs.188, 000/= as appears on the Certificate of Taxation dated 4th April, 2024 with interest at the rate of 14% from the date of filing the Bill of Costs until payment in full and for orders that the applicant be allowed to execute the judgement against the respondent. The application is supported by the affidavit of STEVEN MUREGI CHEGE sworn on even date.

Analysis and determination

2. On the first issue, the court in Republic v City Council of Nairobi Ivyland Park Ltd (interested party) Exparte Inderpal Singh & 2 others (2021) eKLR held that a Court may not enter judgment on a Certificate of Costs where the certificate has been set aside, varied and/or altered or the retainer is disputed. The Certificate of Taxation dated 4th April 2024 has been produced in evidence by the Applicant. I note that despite service the Respondent has not filed any response to the application and as such, the same is unopposed. There is no evidence presented to show that the Certificate of Taxation has been set aside.

3. That being the case, nothing more is left for this Court to do but to enter judgment as I hereby do, for the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs.188, 000/= as per the Certificate of Taxation dated 4th April 2024.

4. Regarding interest, there is sufficient jurisprudence on the point that an applicant is not entitled to interest, where the same is not included in the Bill of Costs. The Court of Appeal in Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v Kenindia Assurance Co Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 165 of 2019) [2023] KECA 1443 (KLR), underscored that an advocate seeking to recover the statutory interest of 14% per annum under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order must expressly claim it in the fee note and/or Bill of Costs. Failure to do so results in forfeiture of the right to claim such interest at a later stage.

5. Equally, in Lubellah & Associates Advocates v N.K Brothers Limited [2014] KEHC 7393 (KLR) the court observed:

“As this court held in HC Misc Nos. 486 and 487 of 2012, E.W. Njeru & Co Advocates (supra), if an advocate files a Bill of Costs without raising the issue of interest, then he forfeits interest as provided under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.”

6. In light of these authorities, I find that no interest is payable in the present case, the applicant having failed to demand interest at the time of preparing or serving the Bill of Costs upon the respondent.

Disposition

7. Accordingly, the application dated 6th February 2018, partially succeeds and is allowed in the following terms: -

i. Judgement be and is hereby entered in favour of the advocate/applicant against the client/respondent in the sum of Kshs.188, 000/= as per the Certificate of Taxation dated 4th April, 2024.
ii. Each party shall bear their own costs of the application.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI
THIS 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026.

F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE

In the presence of:
Ms Mshila for the Advocate/Applicant
Court Assistant: Lilian