THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 154 OF 2023
WEKESA & SIMIYU ADVOCATES ADVOCATE/APPLICANT
VERSUS
EAST AFRICA PORTLAND CEMENT...................................CLIENT/RESPONDENT
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES ACT CHAPTER 16 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN ADVOCATE/CLIENT ITEMIZED BILL O COSTS ARISING FROM LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN CIVIL CASE. NO. 453 OF 2017 AT MAVOKO, FRABO & COMPANY LIMITED VS EAST AFRICAN PORTLAND CEMENT CO. LIMITED
RULING
1. By a Notice of Motion application dated 18th June, 2025 and filed on even date, seeking for this Court to enter judgment in its favour for the amount for the sum of Kshs.400,730.00 being the amount in the Certificate of Taxation of Kshs.400,730.00 dated 13th May, 2025 together with interest thereon at 14% per annum from 23rd March, 2023 being 30 days after service and/or delivery of the Advocate/Client bill of costs, on 20th February, 2023, until payment in full.
2. The Notice of Motion application emanates from the Ruling of the taxing officer of 28th November, 2024 taxing-the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs of the Advocate/Applicant dated 3rd April, 2023 taxed at Kshs.400,730.00. The Advocate/Applicant was issued with a Certificate of Taxation dated 13th May, 2025.The Certificate of costs aforesaid has not been set aside, varied and/or altered through any order of this Honourable Court.
3. That Prior to filing of the application herein, the Advocate/Applicant served the Client /Respondent with a demand notice on 20th February 2023, together with the Advocate/Client Bill of value of the subject matter, the huge exposure of the Advocate/Client due to costs both dated 20th February, 2023 for payment of the outstanding fees and which the Client/Respondent neglected, refused and/or failed to pay.
4. The application was canvassed through written submissions. Only the Applicant has filed submissions dated 18th June 2025.
5. The Applicant has submitted of three issues for determination by this Court:
i. Whether judgment ought to be entered on the certificate of costs for the
Advocate/Applicant;
ii. Whether the Advocate/Applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum from 23rd March, 2023 being the date, 30 days from the date which the Advocate/Applicant delivered to the Client/Respondent a full itemized Advocate/Client Bill of costs dated 20th February, 2023, until payment in full; and,
iii. Whether the Advocate/Applicant is entitled to the costs of this application.
6. On the first issue, the Applicant submitted that it has moved this Court for judgment to be entered for the sum of Four Hundred Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty and Zero Cents (Kshs.400,730.00) being the outstanding sum of the taxed costs as taxed by the Taxing officer on 28th November, 2024 and that a decree does issue for the said outstanding costs.
7. It was submitted that the Ruling of the Taxing Officer dated 28th November, 2024 is annexed to the Supporting affidavit of Evalyne Nthenya Mulungye and marked "EN2" and the same has not been challenged. The Certificate of Taxation issued on 13th May, 2025 annexed to the Supporting Affidavit of Evalyne Nthenya Mulungye as "EN3" has also not been varied and/or set aside and the retainer between the Advocate/Applicant and the Client/Respondent is not disputed.
8. Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act gives this court the mandate to enter judgment for the costs recovered by the Advocate/Applicant. It provides:
“(2) 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 can make such order in relation thereto as it thinks (it, 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”.
9. It was also submitted that this is a suitable case for the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Advocate/Applicant to enter judgment against the Respondent for the certified sums as on the Certificate of Taxation dated 13th May, 2025 together with interest and costs as there is no pending reference against the taxing officer's ruling and the certificate of costs has neither been varied nor set aside, thus satisfying all the conditions as set out in Section 51 (2) of the Act.
10. The Client/Respondent has not disputed the retainer pursuant to which the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs arose from. The Court of Appeal in Peter OdiwuorNgoge T/A O.P. Ngoge & Associates v Washington Jalango Okumu [2012] eKLR, stated the following regarding the circumstances the Applicant may rightly invoke section 51 of the Advocates Act:
"From the above, it is clear that, in our view, once the taxation had proceeded by consent of the parties and once the retainership was not in dispute, as it was not, the appellant was in law entitled to proceed to court pursuant to provisions of Section 51 as he did”
11. The Applicant further and reiterated the conditions that must be fulfilled before a judgment under section 51 of the Act is entered by the Court which the Advocate/Applicant has fulfilled in the following terms:
"Her duty in our view, was to look into whether there was a certificate of taxation and whether it was properly drawn and then look into whether retainer was not disputed. If these aspects were satisfied then the court should have acted and given summary judgment... Section 51 (2) did not authorise the learned Judge to extend the requirements of the law.”
12. Reliance was placed on Nzei& Company Advocates v Davis Mutiso Nthenge [2016] eKLR this Court stated that judgment ought to be entered where there is a Certificate of Costs that has not been set aside by a reference as is the case herein. The Court stated:
"The position in law therefore is that once a taxing officer has taxed the costs, issued a Certificate of costs and there is no reference against his or her ruling, or ruling to set aside and/or alter the taxed costs, this Court can proceed 10 enter judgment on the amount of taxed costs in the certificate of costs.”
13. Also, the High Court in Gitau and Kaburu Advocates LLP v African Merchant Assurance Co. Ltd [2019] eKLR the Court stated thus:
"The applicable law is found at Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act which reads as follows;
“This section gives this court the jurisdiction to enter judgment provided the Bill of Costs has been taxed and the taxing master has issued a Certificate of Costs; in this instance this has been done and the certificate has not been appealed against, set aside or altered; as noted from the court record that despite being duly served with the application the respondent had not filed any response stating that it disputed any retainer”
14. In Republic -vs- City Council of Nairobi; Ivyland Park Ltd (Interested party) Ex parte Inderpal Singh & 2 others Suing as Officials of Convent Drive South Residents' association (2021) eKLR, P. Nyamweya J (as she then was) stated: -
"It is an established position of law that the only reason a court of law cannot enter judgment on a certificate of costs is if the same has been set aside or altered, or where there is an issue of retainer.”
15. In the instant application the Respondent has neither disputed the retainer of the Advocate/Client nor the taxed costs between it and the Advocate/Applicant which was taxed on 28th Novemeber,2024 at Kshs.400,730.00 and a certificate of costs dated 13th May, 2025 issued. There is no pending reference and/or any objection to the taxation under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. In the circumstances, there is no bar to entry of judgment in terms of the certificate of Taxation.
16. The High Court in Lubulellah& Associates Advocates vs N. K. Brothers Limited [20141] eKLR stated as follows:
"19. 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 judgement. An applicant is not required to file suit for the recovery of costs. The certificate of costs is final as to the amounts of the costs and the court would be quite in order to enter judgment in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent herein for the taxed sum indicated in the Certificate of Taxation”
17. The Court in Musyoka &Wambua Advocates vs Rustam Hira Advocate [2006] eKLR in reiterating this position observed that:
"Section 51 of the Act makes general provisions as to taxation, as the marginal note indicates. One of those provisions is that the court has the discretion to enter judgment won a certificate of taxation which has not been set aside or altered where there is no dispute as to retainer. This, in my view, is a mode of recovery of taxed costs provided bp the law in addition to the filing of suit, where such suit would be unnecessary because, one, the certificate of taxation has not been set aside or altered and, two, there is no dispute as to retainer. Unless there is another matter that would require ventilation in a trial, what would be the necessity of filing suit? In my view the court would be entitled to enter judgment under section 51(2) even where there is no suit filed. I so hold "
18. In Mbugua & Mbugua Advocates v Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd [2006] eKLR, this Court stated as follows on a similar application under section 5 1 (2) of the Advocates Act:
"A plain reading of the above section shows that an advocate need not file a suit to recover his costs where the conditions set in the said section are met”
19. Similarly, in Malesi v Teachers Services Commission & another [2016] eKLR this Court held as follows:
"The law is set that once a taxing master has taxed the costs, issued a certificate of costs and there is no reference against his 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. An applicant is not required to file suit for the recovery of costs. The certificate of costs is final as to the amounts of the costs and the court would be quite in order to enter judgment in favour of the applicant against the respondent herein for the taxed sum indicated in the certificate of taxation that was issued. This position has been held by this court in H.C. Misc. 486 of 2012 E.W. NJERU & CO. ADVOCATES VS. ZAKHEM CONSTRUCTION (K) LIMITED and several other courts regarding the entry of judgment upon issuance of a Certificate of Costs that had not been set aside or impugned. The position is based on the provisions of section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act Cap 16 (Laws of Kenya)”.
20. Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act aids in expeditious disposal of cases relating to recovery of advocate-client costs as was stated by F. Gikonyo J in Lesinko Njororge & Gathogo Advocates v Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd [2021] eKLR thus:
"[9] 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 bp and certified under the hand of the taxing master bp a Certificate of Costs; (2) the Certificate of Costs has not been set aside or staved 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”.
21. For the foregoing reasons, I have no reason not to enter judgment for the Advocate/Applicant as prayed for in the instant application.
22. On the second issue whether the Advocate/Applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed costs, the Advocate/Applicant in its application prays for interest on the outstanding fee of the taxed costs of Kshs.400,730.00, from 23rd March, 2023 until payment in full.
23. Section 26 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides:
"26 (l) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the suit to the date of the decree in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period before the institution of the suit, with Further interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable on the aggregate sum so adjudged from the date of the decree to the date of payment or to such earlier date as the court thinks fit."
24. This court has jurisdiction under Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act to make any order that it deems fit including entry of judgment and award of interest at court rates. This was stated by the Court in Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N K Brothers Limited [2014] eKLR:
"28. This court also has jurisdiction under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act to make any order that it deems fit. Entry of judgement and award of interest at court rates is within the ambit of what this court can do. The Applicant has claimed for interest on the taxed amount at the rate of 14% per annum. ... "
25. The Advocates Remuneration Order 2009 also provide for the charging of interest by an advocate for his costs at 14% per annum.
Paragraph 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2009 provides that: -
“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, providing such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full”.
26. The Advocate/Applicant has shown by annexure “EN1” in the supporting affidavit that it had earlier on served the Advocate Client bill of costs dated 4th April, 2023 seeking payment in the sum of Kshs.1,028,188.70 as drawn and a letter dated 20th February, 2023 seeking settlement of the said amount within 30 days which the Client/Respondent ignored, neglected and/or refused to act on.
27. In Francis Mwanza Mulwa v Afrisons Export Import Limited & Another [2015] eKLR this Court stated as follows:
"The principles that are discernible from that argument are:-
1. Unless there is no dispute or an application to set aside or vary the taxation, judgment for the taxed costs should be entered. In this case that was done by consent.
2 Interest is due and payable on disbursements and costs.
3 The appropriate rate is 14% per annum.”
28. Under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Rules 2009 interest is charged from the expiration of one month from delivery of his Bill to be raised in or before the Bill is paid.
The Court went on to hold as follows:
“The Applicant had not received any payment at the time the Application was filed (6 November 2014). Therefore, Rule 7 applies and interest is payable. Rule 7 also provides that interest is payable from a date 30 days after the Bill of Costs was served (see also Ochieng J supra). The Respondents admit service under cover of the Letter dated 12 September 2011. Therefore, interest is payable from 12 October 2011 until date of payment. The Applicable rate is 14% per annum. For the avoidance of doubt, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant interest on the taxed costs at a rate of 14% per annum from the 12 October 2011 to the date of payment”.
29. Similarly, in Anthony Thuo Kanai TA A. Thuo Kanai Advocates v Vishisht Talwar [2015] eKLR, the Environment and Land Court held as follows:
“The relevant legal provision on this point 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. "
To my mind, this legal provision is abundantly clear that an Advocate is entitled to charge interest on his legal fees at the rate of 14% per annum until payment in full. The only proviso given is that the Advocate raise this claim before the bill is paid in full. So far as I can tell, the Applicant/Advocate in this matter has complied with that requirement. It therefore follows that the Respondent is obliged to pay the interest claimed by the Applicant/Advocate. I do so find”.
30. That the Advocate/Applicant having satisfied the requirements of Paragraph 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2009, I find that it is entitled to interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 23rd March, 2023 until payment in full.
31. Lastly on the third issue on whether the advocate/applicant is entitled to the costs of this notice of motion and if so, how much?. The Applicant submitted that the Advocate/Applicant is entitled to costs of this application as per Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014.
32. The Schedule at paragraph I (viii) provides:
"to present or oppose any other application not otherwise provided for- where the application is unopposed Kshs.3, 000.
Provided that: (i) the taxing officer may take into consideration other fees and allowances due to the advocate (if any) in respect of the work to which any such allowance applies, the nature and importance of the cause or matter, the amount involved, the interest of the parties, the general conduct of the proceedings, a direction by the trial judge, and all other relevant circumstances”
33. In view of the orders sought in the application, the interest of the parties, the value of the subject matter, the huge exposure of the Advocate/Client due to the reluctance to settle the outstanding legal fees by the Respondent over a long period of time before the bill of costs herein was filed, during the life of the suit and even after taxation by the taxing master, I find that instructions fees on the application of Kshs.30,000.00 is reasonable and I exercise my discretion and award the same to the Advocate/Applicant.
34. I also find that the Advocate/Applicant is entitled to fees for drawing of the application and these Submissions. The applicable schedule for drawing of pleadings is Paragraph 4 (a) of Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014 put at Kshs.100.00 for four folios or less and additional Kshs.150.00 for any additional folio. Paragraph 17(1) of the Principal Order, Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2009 provides that a folio is deemed to consist of 100 words and any part of a folio shall be charged as one folio. The application, supporting affidavit and these submissions make approximately 60 folios. I will award the Applicant Kshs.9,500.00 on this item.
35. The Advocate/Applicant is also entitled to costs on attendance at Court before the judge for determination of this application at Kshs.2,300.00 per hour per Schedule 6 paragraph 1 (d) of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014, approximating the same to two attendances. I will award the Kshs.4,600.00 on this item.
36. The Applicant urged this Court to assess the costs on this application as to not otherwise do so will entail yet another taxation on that aspect and which will be time consuming and a drain on the time and judicial resources that could be applied on other pressing matters.
37. In the case of Ngati & 3 others v Embakaso Village Craft Curios &Jua Kali Association & 7 others (Environment & Land Case 614 of 2012) [20231 KEELC 21068 (KLR) (26 October 2023) (Ruling), the Court while handling a similar position, proceeded to asses the costs of the application so as to avoid filling of another bill of costs. The Court held that:-
“111. For good measure and to avoid the filing of a Further bill of costs; the costs are hereby assessed and certified in the sum of Kes. 45, 000/= only.”
38. For the foregoing reasons, I allow the application as prayed and enter judgment for the Advocate/Applicant for the sum ofKshs.400, 730.00 together with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 23rd March 2023 until payment in full together with costs of the application assessed at Kshs.44,100.00.
It is hereby so ordered.
RULING WRITTEN, DATED & SIGNED AT MACHAKOS THIS 9TH DECEMBER 2025
NOEL. ADAGI
JUDGE
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON TEAMS AT MACHAKOS THIS 9TH DECEMBER 2025
In the presence of:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 154 OF 2023
WEKESA & SIMIYU ADVOCATES ADVOCATE/APPLICANT
VERSUS
EAST AFRICA PORTLAND CEMENT...................................CLIENT/RESPONDENT
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES ACT CHAPTER 16 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN ADVOCATE/CLIENT ITEMIZED BILL O COSTS ARISING FROM LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN CIVIL CASE. NO. 453 OF 2017 AT MAVOKO, FRABO & COMPANY LIMITED VS EAST AFRICAN PORTLAND CEMENT CO. LIMITED
RULING
1. By a Notice of Motion application dated 18th June, 2025 and filed on even date, seeking for this Court to enter judgment in its favour for the amount for the sum of Kshs.400,730.00 being the amount in the Certificate of Taxation of Kshs.400,730.00 dated 13th May, 2025 together with interest thereon at 14% per annum from 23rd March, 2023 being 30 days after service and/or delivery of the Advocate/Client bill of costs, on 20th February, 2023, until payment in full.
2. The Notice of Motion application emanates from the Ruling of the taxing officer of 28th November, 2024 taxing-the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs of the Advocate/Applicant dated 3rd April, 2023 taxed at Kshs.400,730.00. The Advocate/Applicant was issued with a Certificate of Taxation dated 13th May, 2025.The Certificate of costs aforesaid has not been set aside, varied and/or altered through any order of this Honourable Court.
3. That Prior to filing of the application herein, the Advocate/Applicant served the Client /Respondent with a demand notice on 20th February 2023, together with the Advocate/Client Bill of value of the subject matter, the huge exposure of the Advocate/Client due to costs both dated 20th February, 2023 for payment of the outstanding fees and which the Client/Respondent neglected, refused and/or failed to pay.
4. The application was canvassed through written submissions. Only the Applicant has filed submissions dated 18th June 2025.
5. The Applicant has submitted of three issues for determination by this Court:
i. Whether judgment ought to be entered on the certificate of costs for the
Advocate/Applicant;
ii. Whether the Advocate/Applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum from 23rd March, 2023 being the date, 30 days from the date which the Advocate/Applicant delivered to the Client/Respondent a full itemized Advocate/Client Bill of costs dated 20th February, 2023, until payment in full; and,
iii. Whether the Advocate/Applicant is entitled to the costs of this application.
6. On the first issue, the Applicant submitted that it has moved this Court for judgment to be entered for the sum of Four Hundred Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty and Zero Cents (Kshs.400,730.00) being the outstanding sum of the taxed costs as taxed by the Taxing officer on 28th November, 2024 and that a decree does issue for the said outstanding costs.
7. It was submitted that the Ruling of the Taxing Officer dated 28th November, 2024 is annexed to the Supporting affidavit of Evalyne Nthenya Mulungye and marked "EN2" and the same has not been challenged. The Certificate of Taxation issued on 13th May, 2025 annexed to the Supporting Affidavit of Evalyne Nthenya Mulungye as "EN3" has also not been varied and/or set aside and the retainer between the Advocate/Applicant and the Client/Respondent is not disputed.
8. Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act gives this court the mandate to enter judgment for the costs recovered by the Advocate/Applicant. It provides:
“(2) 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 can make such order in relation thereto as it thinks (it, 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”.
9. It was also submitted that this is a suitable case for the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Advocate/Applicant to enter judgment against the Respondent for the certified sums as on the Certificate of Taxation dated 13th May, 2025 together with interest and costs as there is no pending reference against the taxing officer's ruling and the certificate of costs has neither been varied nor set aside, thus satisfying all the conditions as set out in Section 51 (2) of the Act.
10. The Client/Respondent has not disputed the retainer pursuant to which the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs arose from. The Court of Appeal in Peter OdiwuorNgoge T/A O.P. Ngoge & Associates v Washington Jalango Okumu [2012] eKLR, stated the following regarding the circumstances the Applicant may rightly invoke section 51 of the Advocates Act:
"From the above, it is clear that, in our view, once the taxation had proceeded by consent of the parties and once the retainership was not in dispute, as it was not, the appellant was in law entitled to proceed to court pursuant to provisions of Section 51 as he did”
11. The Applicant further and reiterated the conditions that must be fulfilled before a judgment under section 51 of the Act is entered by the Court which the Advocate/Applicant has fulfilled in the following terms:
"Her duty in our view, was to look into whether there was a certificate of taxation and whether it was properly drawn and then look into whether retainer was not disputed. If these aspects were satisfied then the court should have acted and given summary judgment... Section 51 (2) did not authorise the learned Judge to extend the requirements of the law.”
12. Reliance was placed on Nzei& Company Advocates v Davis Mutiso Nthenge [2016] eKLR this Court stated that judgment ought to be entered where there is a Certificate of Costs that has not been set aside by a reference as is the case herein. The Court stated:
"The position in law therefore is that once a taxing officer has taxed the costs, issued a Certificate of costs and there is no reference against his or her ruling, or ruling to set aside and/or alter the taxed costs, this Court can proceed 10 enter judgment on the amount of taxed costs in the certificate of costs.”
13. Also, the High Court in Gitau and Kaburu Advocates LLP v African Merchant Assurance Co. Ltd [2019] eKLR the Court stated thus:
"The applicable law is found at Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act which reads as follows;
“This section gives this court the jurisdiction to enter judgment provided the Bill of Costs has been taxed and the taxing master has issued a Certificate of Costs; in this instance this has been done and the certificate has not been appealed against, set aside or altered; as noted from the court record that despite being duly served with the application the respondent had not filed any response stating that it disputed any retainer”
14. In Republic -vs- City Council of Nairobi; Ivyland Park Ltd (Interested party) Ex parte Inderpal Singh & 2 others Suing as Officials of Convent Drive South Residents' association (2021) eKLR, P. Nyamweya J (as she then was) stated: -
"It is an established position of law that the only reason a court of law cannot enter judgment on a certificate of costs is if the same has been set aside or altered, or where there is an issue of retainer.”
15. In the instant application the Respondent has neither disputed the retainer of the Advocate/Client nor the taxed costs between it and the Advocate/Applicant which was taxed on 28th Novemeber,2024 at Kshs.400,730.00 and a certificate of costs dated 13th May, 2025 issued. There is no pending reference and/or any objection to the taxation under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. In the circumstances, there is no bar to entry of judgment in terms of the certificate of Taxation.
16. The High Court in Lubulellah& Associates Advocates vs N. K. Brothers Limited [20141] eKLR stated as follows:
"19. 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 judgement. An applicant is not required to file suit for the recovery of costs. The certificate of costs is final as to the amounts of the costs and the court would be quite in order to enter judgment in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent herein for the taxed sum indicated in the Certificate of Taxation”
17. The Court in Musyoka &Wambua Advocates vs Rustam Hira Advocate [2006] eKLR in reiterating this position observed that:
"Section 51 of the Act makes general provisions as to taxation, as the marginal note indicates. One of those provisions is that the court has the discretion to enter judgment won a certificate of taxation which has not been set aside or altered where there is no dispute as to retainer. This, in my view, is a mode of recovery of taxed costs provided bp the law in addition to the filing of suit, where such suit would be unnecessary because, one, the certificate of taxation has not been set aside or altered and, two, there is no dispute as to retainer. Unless there is another matter that would require ventilation in a trial, what would be the necessity of filing suit? In my view the court would be entitled to enter judgment under section 51(2) even where there is no suit filed. I so hold "
18. In Mbugua & Mbugua Advocates v Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd [2006] eKLR, this Court stated as follows on a similar application under section 5 1 (2) of the Advocates Act:
"A plain reading of the above section shows that an advocate need not file a suit to recover his costs where the conditions set in the said section are met”
19. Similarly, in Malesi v Teachers Services Commission & another [2016] eKLR this Court held as follows:
"The law is set that once a taxing master has taxed the costs, issued a certificate of costs and there is no reference against his 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. An applicant is not required to file suit for the recovery of costs. The certificate of costs is final as to the amounts of the costs and the court would be quite in order to enter judgment in favour of the applicant against the respondent herein for the taxed sum indicated in the certificate of taxation that was issued. This position has been held by this court in H.C. Misc. 486 of 2012 E.W. NJERU & CO. ADVOCATES VS. ZAKHEM CONSTRUCTION (K) LIMITED and several other courts regarding the entry of judgment upon issuance of a Certificate of Costs that had not been set aside or impugned. The position is based on the provisions of section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act Cap 16 (Laws of Kenya)”.
20. Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act aids in expeditious disposal of cases relating to recovery of advocate-client costs as was stated by F. Gikonyo J in Lesinko Njororge & Gathogo Advocates v Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd [2021] eKLR thus:
"[9] 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 bp and certified under the hand of the taxing master bp a Certificate of Costs; (2) the Certificate of Costs has not been set aside or staved 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”.
21. For the foregoing reasons, I have no reason not to enter judgment for the Advocate/Applicant as prayed for in the instant application.
22. On the second issue whether the Advocate/Applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed costs, the Advocate/Applicant in its application prays for interest on the outstanding fee of the taxed costs of Kshs.400,730.00, from 23rd March, 2023 until payment in full.
23. Section 26 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides:
"26 (l) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the suit to the date of the decree in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period before the institution of the suit, with Further interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable on the aggregate sum so adjudged from the date of the decree to the date of payment or to such earlier date as the court thinks fit."
24. This court has jurisdiction under Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act to make any order that it deems fit including entry of judgment and award of interest at court rates. This was stated by the Court in Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N K Brothers Limited [2014] eKLR:
"28. This court also has jurisdiction under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act to make any order that it deems fit. Entry of judgement and award of interest at court rates is within the ambit of what this court can do. The Applicant has claimed for interest on the taxed amount at the rate of 14% per annum. ... "
25. The Advocates Remuneration Order 2009 also provide for the charging of interest by an advocate for his costs at 14% per annum.
Paragraph 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2009 provides that: -
“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, providing such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full”.
26. The Advocate/Applicant has shown by annexure “EN1” in the supporting affidavit that it had earlier on served the Advocate Client bill of costs dated 4th April, 2023 seeking payment in the sum of Kshs.1,028,188.70 as drawn and a letter dated 20th February, 2023 seeking settlement of the said amount within 30 days which the Client/Respondent ignored, neglected and/or refused to act on.
27. In Francis Mwanza Mulwa v Afrisons Export Import Limited & Another [2015] eKLR this Court stated as follows:
"The principles that are discernible from that argument are:-
1. Unless there is no dispute or an application to set aside or vary the taxation, judgment for the taxed costs should be entered. In this case that was done by consent.
2 Interest is due and payable on disbursements and costs.
3 The appropriate rate is 14% per annum.”
28. Under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Rules 2009 interest is charged from the expiration of one month from delivery of his Bill to be raised in or before the Bill is paid.
The Court went on to hold as follows:
“The Applicant had not received any payment at the time the Application was filed (6 November 2014). Therefore, Rule 7 applies and interest is payable. Rule 7 also provides that interest is payable from a date 30 days after the Bill of Costs was served (see also Ochieng J supra). The Respondents admit service under cover of the Letter dated 12 September 2011. Therefore, interest is payable from 12 October 2011 until date of payment. The Applicable rate is 14% per annum. For the avoidance of doubt, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant interest on the taxed costs at a rate of 14% per annum from the 12 October 2011 to the date of payment”.
29. Similarly, in Anthony Thuo Kanai TA A. Thuo Kanai Advocates v Vishisht Talwar [2015] eKLR, the Environment and Land Court held as follows:
“The relevant legal provision on this point 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. "
To my mind, this legal provision is abundantly clear that an Advocate is entitled to charge interest on his legal fees at the rate of 14% per annum until payment in full. The only proviso given is that the Advocate raise this claim before the bill is paid in full. So far as I can tell, the Applicant/Advocate in this matter has complied with that requirement. It therefore follows that the Respondent is obliged to pay the interest claimed by the Applicant/Advocate. I do so find”.
30. That the Advocate/Applicant having satisfied the requirements of Paragraph 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2009, I find that it is entitled to interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 23rd March, 2023 until payment in full.
31. Lastly on the third issue on whether the advocate/applicant is entitled to the costs of this notice of motion and if so, how much?. The Applicant submitted that the Advocate/Applicant is entitled to costs of this application as per Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014.
32. The Schedule at paragraph I (viii) provides:
"to present or oppose any other application not otherwise provided for- where the application is unopposed Kshs.3, 000.
Provided that: (i) the taxing officer may take into consideration other fees and allowances due to the advocate (if any) in respect of the work to which any such allowance applies, the nature and importance of the cause or matter, the amount involved, the interest of the parties, the general conduct of the proceedings, a direction by the trial judge, and all other relevant circumstances”
33. In view of the orders sought in the application, the interest of the parties, the value of the subject matter, the huge exposure of the Advocate/Client due to the reluctance to settle the outstanding legal fees by the Respondent over a long period of time before the bill of costs herein was filed, during the life of the suit and even after taxation by the taxing master, I find that instructions fees on the application of Kshs.30,000.00 is reasonable and I exercise my discretion and award the same to the Advocate/Applicant.
34. I also find that the Advocate/Applicant is entitled to fees for drawing of the application and these Submissions. The applicable schedule for drawing of pleadings is Paragraph 4 (a) of Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014 put at Kshs.100.00 for four folios or less and additional Kshs.150.00 for any additional folio. Paragraph 17(1) of the Principal Order, Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2009 provides that a folio is deemed to consist of 100 words and any part of a folio shall be charged as one folio. The application, supporting affidavit and these submissions make approximately 60 folios. I will award the Applicant Kshs.9,500.00 on this item.
35. The Advocate/Applicant is also entitled to costs on attendance at Court before the judge for determination of this application at Kshs.2,300.00 per hour per Schedule 6 paragraph 1 (d) of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014, approximating the same to two attendances. I will award the Kshs.4,600.00 on this item.
36. The Applicant urged this Court to assess the costs on this application as to not otherwise do so will entail yet another taxation on that aspect and which will be time consuming and a drain on the time and judicial resources that could be applied on other pressing matters.
37. In the case of Ngati & 3 others v Embakaso Village Craft Curios &Jua Kali Association & 7 others (Environment & Land Case 614 of 2012) [20231 KEELC 21068 (KLR) (26 October 2023) (Ruling), the Court while handling a similar position, proceeded to asses the costs of the application so as to avoid filling of another bill of costs. The Court held that:-
“111. For good measure and to avoid the filing of a Further bill of costs; the costs are hereby assessed and certified in the sum of Kes. 45, 000/= only.”
38. For the foregoing reasons, I allow the application as prayed and enter judgment for the Advocate/Applicant for the sum ofKshs.400, 730.00 together with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 23rd March 2023 until payment in full together with costs of the application assessed at Kshs.44,100.00.
It is hereby so ordered.
RULING WRITTEN, DATED & SIGNED AT MACHAKOS THIS 9TH DECEMBER 2025
NOEL. ADAGI
JUDGE
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON TEAMS AT MACHAKOS THIS 9TH DECEMBER 2025
In the presence of:-