Gazemba Wekesa & Co Advocates v Pinnie Agency Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Application E053 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6332 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court enforced a KSh 6.8 million taxed legal fee but denied retroactive interest because the advocate never formally claimed interest before taxation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether extension of time should be granted to file a reference against the Taxing Master's Ruling
Extension refused; no cogent or sufficient reasons for the approximately six-month delay were given.
The applicant blamed delay in accessing the Taxing Master's ruling, but the Advocate's uncontroverted replying affidavit, with a screenshot, showed the ruling was uploaded on the Judiciary e-filing platform on 19th July 2024 and easily accessible. Applying the Salat principles as restated by the Supreme Court, delay alone is not automatic justification; the applicant bears the burden of explaining it satisfactorily. General statements blaming the Taxing Master without specific details did not suffice.
Whether judgment should be entered on the Certificate of Costs
Judgment entered for Kshs 6,856,028; the certificate of taxation dated 19th August 2024 stands, no reference is pending, and retainer is not disputed.
Section 51(2) permits judgment on a taxed certificate unless it is set aside or altered, where retainer is not disputed. All conditions were met: a certificate dated 19th August 2024 existed, the extension-of-time application having failed there was no pending reference, and retainer was undisputed.
Whether interest at 14% per annum should run from 8th August 2021
Interest awarded only from the date of judgment because the advocate did not prove an earlier claim for interest.
Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order permits 14% interest only where the claim for interest is raised before the amount has been paid or tendered in full. The advocate's supporting affidavit did not show that he raised interest before taxation, so the Kerongo principle applied and interest runs only from judgment.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is a discretionary, equitable remedy requiring a deserving party to explain the whole period of delay satisfactorily
- Judgment may be entered on a certificate of taxation where the certificate has been issued, has not been set aside or altered, and retainer is not disputed
- Interest at 14% under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order is only claimable where the advocate proves the claim for interest was raised before payment or tender in full
Court orders
#- 1.The Client/ Respondents application dated 11th October 2024 is dismissed.
- 2.Judgement on costs is entered for the sum of Kshs 6,856,028.
- 3.Interest at 14% from the date of Judgement.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Advocates Remuneration Order, paragraph 11(4) (power of High Court to enlarge time) and section 51(2) of the Advocates Act (judgment on certificate of taxation)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gazemba Wekesa & Co Advocates v Pinnie Agency Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Application E053 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6332 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6332/eng@2025-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.