Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 4935 (KLR)

Muchangi Nduati & Co Advocates v Ndege (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E074 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4935 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
25 June 2025
820 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 High Court allowed a law firm to turn its taxed fee certificate directly into a court judgment, but refused interest because the firm never claimed it early.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a notice of motion dated 24th September 2024 brought under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, in which the applicant advocate sought judgment on a taxed advocate-client bill of costs of Kshs. 248,898.40 plus interest at 14% per annum from 10th July 2024. The applicant averred that the respondent retained the firm in CMELC No. 1416 of 2018 (formerly ELC No. 115 of 2017), was served with the bill, and that the bill was taxed on 21st August 2024 with a certificate of taxation issued on 13th September 2024 which was not honoured. Despite service, the respondent filed no response. The court framed one issue: whether judgment should be entered per the certificate of taxation. Relying on Section 51(2), and applying Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N.K. Brothers Limited, the court held that since the certificate had not been set aside or varied and the retainer was not disputed, judgment should be entered for the certified sum. On interest, applying Kerongo & Company Advocates, the court found the applicant had not demonstrated that the claim for interest was raised before the bill was paid or tendered in full, and refused the 14% interest. Judgment was entered for Kshs. 248,898.40 with costs of the application to the applicant. Ruling delivered virtually on 25th June 2025 by Hon. T. Murigi, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Entry of judgment on a certificate of taxation

Holding

Judgment was entered for the advocate for Kshs. 248,898.40 as per the certificate of taxation dated 13th September 2024, which had not been set aside or varied

Reasoning

Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act makes the taxing officer's certificate final as to the amount of costs unless set aside or altered by the court. The applicant demonstrated an advocate-client relationship, the bill was taxed at Kshs. 248,898.40, a certificate was issued on 13th September 2024 and remained unaltered. The respondent did not oppose the application despite service, so there was no reason to deny judgment.

p. 2
02

Entitlement to interest at 14% per annum under Rule 7

Holding

Interest was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate that the claim for interest was raised before the bill was paid or tendered in full

Reasoning

Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order permits an advocate to charge interest at 14% per annum from one month after delivery of the bill, provided the claim for interest was raised before the amount has been paid or tendered in full. Following Kerongo & Company Advocates, the applicant bore the burden of proving that the interest claim was so raised, which was not discharged.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Once a bill has been taxed and the certificate of taxation has not been set aside or altered, the court should enter judgment for the certified sum without requiring the advocate to file suit, provided the retainer is not disputed.
  • An advocate must prove that a claim for interest under Rule 7 was raised before the bill was paid or tendered in full to be awarded interest at 14% per annum.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment be and is hereby entered for the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs. 248,898.40/= in terms of the Certificate of Taxation dated 13th September 2024
  2. 2.The Applicant is awarded costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Act Cap 16 Laws of KenyaSection 51(2)
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 7

Cases cited (2)

  • Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N.K. Brothers Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kerongo & Company Advocates vs Africa Assurance Merchant Co. Ltd
    (2019) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act Cap 16 and Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muchangi Nduati & Co Advocates v Ndege (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E074 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4935 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4935/eng@2025-06-25

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