Chaudhri & Associates v Registered Trustees of Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al – Nahyan (Miscellaneous Civil Application E203 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4815 (KLR)

Rule 11(1) requires a party objecting to a taxing officer's decision to give written notice of the items objected to within 14 days. The notice must specify the items so the taxing officer can give reasons on them; an omnibus notice is fatally defective, as the Court of Appeal held in Machira v Magugu. On perusal of the record no notice of objection, not even an incompetent one, was filed. Such a notice is the equivalent of a memorandum of appeal, and without it the Reference fails. The court struck out the application on this ground alone.

The bill before the court contained only six items plus the VAT claim and 50% increment; the other items the client submitted on were unknown to the court. The Taxing Master did err in finding the bill unopposed since the client had filed submissions, but no prejudice was shown so no interference followed. VAT is a statutory 16% charge on legal fees under the VAT Act; the 50% increment is the mechanism prescribed by Schedule VI Part B for Advocate-Client bills; and costs of taxation are discretionary under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and follow the event.

Once a certificate of costs is issued and is not set aside or altered, no other action is required save entry of judgment; no fresh suit is needed. Although the client's reference had been dismissed, the court noted that under Rule 7 an advocate may charge 14% interest only if the claim for interest is raised in the bill; the Otieno Ragot authority holds that where interest is included in the bill, Rule 7 is negated and the court falls back on its discretion under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act. Here the Advocate had included interest in the bill, so the court exercised its discretion and awarded 14% from one month after issuance of the certificate.