Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNotice of Motion dated 11th June 2025 (in execution of decree dated 21st January 2025; taxed costs in ELC Miscellaneous Application No. E051 of 2021)· [2025] KEELC 7764 (KLR)

Karibu & Company Advocates v Tayiana (Miscellaneous Civil Suit E051 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7764 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 November 2025
MMM.D. Mwangi
1,609 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court struck out a law firm's attempt to freeze a former client's land, ruling that recovering taxed costs requires a charging order under Section 52 of the Advocates Act.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Kabiru & Company Advocates, by Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2025, sought injunction and preservation orders against its former client, Turere Ole Tayiana, restraining further subdivision, transfer or dealing with parcels derived from Title No. /645, together with orders compelling disclosure of resultant parcels and transferees, accounts, a declaration of constructive trust, and attachment and sale of the parcels to satisfy taxed costs of Kshs. 1,625,597.90 under a certificate of taxation dated 25th May 2023 adopted as judgment on 21st January 2025 in ELC Miscellaneous Application No. E051 of 2021. The applicant alleged the respondent had subdivided and transferred his only known asset to third parties, allegedly his children, to defeat execution. There was no response despite service. M.D. Mwangi J held that advocate-client proceedings are sui generis, governed by the Advocates Act and Advocates (Remuneration) Order, distinct from ordinary civil execution under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules. The proper remedy for realizing taxed costs through attachment and sale of a former client's property is a charging order under Section 52 of the Advocates Act, applied in Nyandoro and Company Advocates v National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation. The application was therefore misconceived and struck out as procedurally improper, with liberty to move by way of summons under Section 52 and no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a Notice of Motion invoking general Civil Procedure Act/Rules provisions is the correct procedure for an advocate to enforce a decree for taxed costs against a client's subdivided property

Holding

No - the application is improper and was struck out; the advocate must move under Section 52 of the Advocates Act for a charging order

Reasoning

The court held advocate-client proceedings are sui generis, governed exclusively by the Advocates Act and Advocates (Remuneration) Order including taxation and execution procedures. Since the applicant sought injunctive and preservation orders to recover taxed costs, it had to follow the specialized charging-order procedure under Section 52 and Order 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules. A general Notice of Motion under the Civil Procedure Act/Rules was misconceived, though the applicant retains a valid decree and may file fresh proceedings under Section 52.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Advocate-client proceedings are sui generis, governed by the Advocates Act and the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, distinct from ordinary civil execution proceedings under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules
  • The proper remedy for an advocate to realize taxed costs through attachment and sale of a former client's property is a charging order under Section 52 of the Advocates Act, not a general application under the Civil Procedure Act/Rules
  • Conveyances and acts done to defeat an advocate's charge are void except against a bona fide purchaser for value without notice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2025 is struck out for being procedurally improper and not properly before the Court
  2. 2.The Applicant is at liberty to move the Court appropriately by way of summons under Section 52 of the Advocates Act
  3. 3.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates ActSection 52 (Cap 16)
  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 52

Cases cited (1)

  • Nyandoro and Company Advocates v National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation
    [2022] KEHC 142 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction to enforce its own decree; procedure governed by the Advocates Act (Cap 16) and Advocates (Remuneration) Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karibu & Company Advocates v Tayiana (Miscellaneous Civil Suit E051 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7764 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2025 (in execution of decree dated 21st January 2025; taxed costs in ELC Miscellaneous Application No. E051 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7764/eng@2025-11-06

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