Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedMisc. Civil Application No. E202 of 2022· [2026] KEELC 4812 (KLR)

Chaudhri & Associates v Registered Trustees of Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al – Nahyan (Miscellaneous Civil Application E202 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4812 (KLR)

Environment & Land Court
21 July 2026
5,101 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~20 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ordered a client to pay over KSh 22 million in legal fees because it never filed the required Notice of Objection challenging the taxed costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (Kemei J) determined two applications arising from the taxation of Advocate-Client Bills of Costs. The Client (respondent) sought, by Chamber Summons under Rule 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, to set aside the taxation of specified items, complaining that the Taxing Master wrongly treated the Bill as unchallenged, awarded VAT without proof of payment, granted an unjustified 50% increment, and awarded excessive fees. The Advocate applied under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act for judgment on the Certificate of Costs dated 24/2/2026 for Kshs. 22,452,846.32 with interest. The court found that the Client never filed a Notice of Objection to taxation, which is mandatory under Rule 11 and equivalent to a memorandum of appeal; the Reference was therefore incompetent and failed on that ground alone. The court nonetheless considered the merits, holding that although the Taxing Master erred in finding the Bill unopposed, no prejudice was shown; VAT is a statutory charge; the 50% increment is prescribed by Schedule VI; and costs of taxation follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Client's application was dismissed with costs. The Advocate's application was allowed: judgment was entered in the certified sums with interest at 14% per annum from 24/3/2026 under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the Advocate was awarded costs of both applications.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competency of the Client's Reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order

Holding

The Reference was incompetent because no Notice of Objection to taxation was filed at all.

Reasoning

Rule 11 obliges an aggrieved party to file a notice of objection within 14 days specifying the items objected to; the notice must not be omnibus. The court perused the record and found no notice, not even a defective one, was ever filed. Relying on Machira & Chadha, the court held the application fails on this ground alone.

p. 10
02

Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle

Holding

No error of principle warranting interference was established.

Reasoning

Although the Taxing Master erred in finding the Bill unchallenged when the Client had filed submissions, the Client showed no prejudice. VAT is a statutory charge on legal fees; the 50% increment is the prescribed mechanism for Advocate-Client costs under Schedule VI; and costs of taxation follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. Further, the items submitted on were unknown to the Court.

p. 12
03

Entry of judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act

Holding

Judgment was entered for the Advocate in terms of the unaltered Certificate of Costs.

Reasoning

Section 51(2) makes the certificate final as to quantum unless set aside or altered. The Client's reference having been dismissed, and relying on Lubulellah and the Supreme Court's Kenya Airports Authority decision, the court entered judgment for the certified sum, with interest under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act at 14% per annum from one month after issuance of the certificate.

p. 14
04

Interest on the certified sum

Holding

Interest awarded at 14% per annum from 24/3/2026 under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act rather than Rule 7 of the Remuneration Order.

Reasoning

Following Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority, where interest is included as a charge in the Bill of Costs, Rule 7 does not apply and the court falls back on its discretion under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Advocate had included a claim for interest in the Bill, so the court awarded 14% per annum from one month after the Certificate of Costs was issued.

p. 15

Legal principles established

#
  • Filing of a Notice of Objection to taxation within 14 days, specifying the items objected to, is mandatory and its absence renders a Reference incompetent.
  • A court cannot interfere with a Taxing Master's decision absent an error of principle or a manifestly excessive fee.
  • Once a Certificate of Costs is issued and is not set aside or altered, the only remaining step is entry of judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act; no fresh suit is required.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber Summons dated 9/2/2026 filed in ELC Misc. E202, E203 and E204 of 2022 is dismissed with costs to the Advocates
  2. 2.The Notices of Motion dated 29/5/2026 in ELC Misc. E202, E203 and E204 of 2022 are allowed and judgment is entered for the Advocates against the Client
  3. 3.In Miscellaneous ELC E203 of 2022 judgment entered for the Advocates against the Client for Kshs. 21,027,030.00 with interest at 14% per annum from 24/3/2026 till payment in full
  4. 4.In Miscellaneous ELC E203 of 2022 (as printed) judgment entered for the Advocates against the Client for Kshs. 21,415,441.50 with interest at 14% per annum from 24/3/2026 till payment in full
  5. 5.In Miscellaneous ELC E204 of 2022 judgment entered for the Advocates against the Client for Kshs. 22,452,846.32 with interest at 14% per annum from 24/3/2026 till payment in full
  6. 6.The Advocates are awarded costs for both applications
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chaudhri & Associates v Registered Trustees of Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al – Nahyan (Miscellaneous Civil Application E202 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4812 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Misc. Civil Application No. E202 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4812/eng@2026-07-21

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