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 the judgment as provided· [2025] KEELC 8145 (KLR)

Muchangi Nduati & Co Advocates v Ndege & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 8145 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (Machakos)
25 November 2025
NMN.A. Matheka
644 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 confirmed that untaxed bills aside, once costs are taxed and unchallenged, an advocate can obtain judgment against a client who simply stays silent.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an application dated 13th November 2024, brought under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act (Cap 16) and Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order by the advocate, Muchangi Nduati Ngingo, seeking judgment against the respondents for Kshs 189,342.00, being the taxed advocate-client costs, plus interest at 14% per annum from 22nd November 2023 until payment in full, and costs of the application. The applicant argued that the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs had been taxed at Kshs 189,342.00 and a Certificate of Taxation issued; that the award was not challenged although the respondents were informed of it; and that the respondents had ignored several requests to settle the taxed costs, prejudicing the applicant's recovery. The court considered the procedure under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order for objecting to a Taxing Master's decision, and the settled principles from First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates, namely that a Taxing Master's judicial discretion may only be interfered with on proof of an error of principle, manifestly excessive fees, or capricious exercise of discretion. Noting that the respondents had raised no objection and the application was unopposed, the court found the application merited and granted it as prayed, entering judgment for the applicant for the taxed costs with interest at 14% per annum from 22nd November 2023 until payment in full, but making no orders as to costs on the application. Judgment delivered at Machakos on 25th November 2025 by N.A. Matheka, J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether judgment may be entered on a certificate of taxation under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act where the taxation is unchallenged

Holding

Yes; where no objection is raised under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the taxed costs are payable and judgment as prayed is merited

Reasoning

The court set out Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order as the procedure for challenging a Taxing Master's decision, and the principles in First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Joreth Ltd v Kigano on when such a decision may be disturbed. Since the Respondent raised no objection and the application was unopposed, the court found the application merited and granted it as prayed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A Taxing Master's judicial discretion can only be interfered with where it is established there was an error of principle, the fee awarded is manifestly excessive, or the discretion was exercised capriciously and in abuse of the correct principles of law

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the Applicant/Advocate against the Respondents in the sum of Kshs 189,342.00 being the taxed costs
  2. 2.Interest at 14% per annum from 22nd November 2023 till payment in full
  3. 3.No orders as to costs on the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Act Cap 16 Laws of KenyaSection 51(2)
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 7
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11

Cases cited (2)

  • First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and others
    (2002) EA 64; (2002) E.A.L.R 64
  • Joreth Ltd v Kigano and Associates
    (2002) 1 EA 92; (2002) 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 & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 8145 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8145/eng@2025-11-25

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