Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2022] KEELC 1762 (KLR)

Akide and Company Advocates v Registered Trustees of Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme [2022] KEELC 1762 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
3 February 2022
EWE. K. WABWOTO
823 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court converted a lawyer's taxed fee certificate into a Kshs. 13.9 million judgment, but refused interest because the lawyer never expressly demanded it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant advocate, Kenneth Wabwire Akide S.C, moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 17th September 2021 under Section 51 of the Advocates Act, seeking to have a Certificate of Taxation dated 30th August 2021 deemed as judgment and decree against the Respondent for Kshs. 13,889,094.60, plus interest at 14% per annum under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order from one month after demand until payment in full. The bill arose from instructions to institute ELC No. 302 of 2015 (The Registered Trustees of the Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme v Registered Trustee of Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan & Others) to protect the Respondent's proprietary rights over L.R No. 209/6525, and was taxed on 18th August 2021. The application was unopposed; an affidavit of service by Jairus Nduru sworn 5th January 2022 proved service. The court, per E. K. Wabwoto J, framed a single issue - whether the application was merited. Relying on Section 51(2), the court held the certificate final as to the amounts certified since it was not disputed, and entered judgment for Kshs. 13,889,094.60. However, on interest, the court found Regulation 7 requires a specific demand for interest after delivery of the bill; the demand annexed (KWA-5) showed no such demand, so interest was refused. As the Respondent did not resist the application, each party was directed to bear its own costs. The application was thus partially allowed on 3rd February 2022.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether judgment should be entered on the Certificate of Taxation under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act

Holding

Judgment entered for the taxed sum of Kshs. 13,889,094.60 as the Respondent was duly served and did not dispute the Certificate of Taxation

Reasoning

Section 51(2) provides that a taxing officer's certificate is final as to the amount of costs unless set aside or altered by the Court, and the Court may enter judgment where the retainer is not disputed. Service was proved by affidavit of service; the Respondent did not attend or oppose; the certificate dated 30th August 2021 therefore stood and judgment followed for the certified amount.

p. 1
02

Whether interest at 14% per annum under Regulation 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order was payable

Holding

Interest declined because no claim for interest was shown to have been raised on the client after delivery of the bill

Reasoning

Regulation 7 requires not only service of the bill but a specific demand for interest before payment or tender in full, and permits interest only from expiry of one month from delivery of the bill. On perusal of the demand for settlement of taxed costs (annexure KWA-5) and other annexures, no demand for interest appeared, so the court could not award interest.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A certificate of taxation is final as to the amount of costs unless set aside or altered by the Court, and judgment may be entered where the retainer is not disputed
  • An advocate may charge interest at 14% per annum only where a claim for interest was raised before payment or tender in full and one month has lapsed from delivery of the bill

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment be entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent for Ksh 13,889,094.60
  2. 2.The claim for interest is declined
  3. 3.Each party to bear its own costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates ActSection 51(2)
  • Advocates (Remuneration) OrderRegulation 7 (Rule 7)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 51 of the Advocates Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Akide and Company Advocates v Registered Trustees of Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme [2022] KEELC 1762 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1762/eng@2022-02-03

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.