Chaudhri & Associates v Registered Trustees of Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (Miscellaneous Civil Application E204 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4834 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled a client who missed the 14-day deadline to object to taxed legal fees must pay the advocate over KSh 22 million plus interest.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competency of the Client's Reference
The Reference was incompetent because no Notice of Objection to taxation was filed within the statutory 14-day period as required by Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
Rule 11 makes the filing of a notice of objection within 14 days mandatory, and the notice must specify the items objected to - it cannot be omnibus. The court likened the notice to a memorandum of appeal identifying grounds. Relying on Twiga Motors, Machira and Chadha, the court held that on the record no notice was ever filed, not even an incompetent one, so the application failed on this ground alone.
Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle
No error of principle warranting interference was established; the 50% increment, VAT award and costs of taxation were all lawful, and the impugned items beyond the six known to the court could not be considered.
The court applied Premchand Raichand, First American Bank v Shah and Joreth Ltd. The 50% increment is the statutory mechanism under Schedule VI Part B for Advocate-Client costs; VAT is a statutory 16% charge on legal fees; costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. Although the Taxing Master erred in finding the Bill unopposed, the Client showed no prejudice. Items not on the Bill before the court could not be determined.
Entry of judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act
Judgment was entered for the Advocate in the certified sum because the certificate of costs was unaltered and the Client's reference had been disallowed.
Section 51(2) makes the taxing officer's certificate final as to the quantum of costs unless set aside or altered by the Court, and empowers the Court to order entry of judgment where the retainer is not disputed. Following Lubulellah and the Supreme Court's Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot, and since the Client's reference was dismissed, judgment was entered for the certified sum with interest under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act at 14% per annum.
Legal principles established
#- A party aggrieved by a taxing officer's decision must file a notice of objection specifying the items objected to within 14 days; without it, a reference is incompetent
- A court cannot interfere with a Taxing Master's decision unless an error of principle is shown or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive
- Once a certificate of costs is issued and no reference is pending or has succeeded, the court's only remaining step is entry of judgment under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act
- Rule 7 interest applies only where the claim for interest was raised in the bill of costs; otherwise the court falls back on section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 9/2/2026 filed in ELC Misc. E202, E203 and E204 of 2022 dismissed with costs to the Advocates
- 2.The Notices of Motion dated 29/5/2026 in ELC Misc. E202, E203 and E204 of 2022 allowed
- 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.In Miscellaneous ELC E203 of 2022 (as printed; apparently E202), 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.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.The Advocates awarded costs of both applications
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and Rule 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; civil review of a Taxing Master's ruling
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 E204 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4834 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Misc. Civil Application No. E204 of 2022 (also determined ELC Misc. E202 of 2022 and ELC Misc. E203 of 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4834/eng@2026-07-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.