Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedCause No. 25 of 2025 (Advocate-Client)· [2026] KEELC 4841 (KLR)

Olendo Orare & Samba Advocates LLP v County Government of Siaya (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E025 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4841 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
27 July 2026
ADA.E. Dena
3,165 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court converted a law firm's taxed fee bill of Kshs. 198 million into a court judgment with 14% interest, ruling a pending fee challenge doesn't block adoption.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the High Court (A.E. Dena, J) determined a Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2025 by an advocate firm, Olendo, Orare & Samba Advocates LLP, seeking adoption of a Certificate of Taxation dated 08.08.2025 for Kshs. 198,476,956/- as judgment and decree, with interest at 14% per annum from 21.03.2025, under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. The Respondent client opposed through a replying affidavit sworn by Joseph Omondi, arguing the application was premature because a reference, Misc. Application E030 of 2025, challenging the taxation was pending and undetermined, and that a certificate of costs can only be converted into a decree once final and unchallenged. The Respondent relied on Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N.K. Brothers Ltd and Lensinko Njoroge & Gathogo v Invesco Assurance. The Applicant relied on Kemboy Law Advocates v Mruttu, contending the reference was filed in a separate cause rather than the taxation file and could not invoke the court's jurisdiction. The court held that the retainer was undisputed, that disputing quantum does not amount to a disputed retainer, and that section 51(2) contemplates an actual setting aside or alteration of the certificate - the mere existence of a reference does not bar adoption. Adoption was characterised as an administrative step distinct from execution. Noting that the reference had been struck out by a ruling dated 8/05/2026 for want of leave, the court distinguished the Respondent's authorities and allowed the application as prayed, adopting the certificate as judgment with interest and awarding the Applicant costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a disputed retainer exists under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act

Holding

There was no dispute as to the retainer; disputing quantum of fees does not amount to a disputed retainer.

Reasoning

Applying Muriu Mungai & Co Advocates v Mbugua, the court noted the retainer is the contract of employment between advocate and client; challenging quantum, quality of work or alleging breach of fiduciary duty does not dispute the retainer. Here it was uncontroverted that the applicant was retained to act in Siaya ELC No. E019 of 2022 and rendered services, so the caveat of a disputed retainer did not apply.

p. 5
02

Whether a pending reference (Misc. E030 of 2025) bars adoption of the certificate of taxation

Holding

A mere pending reference does not bar adoption; section 51(2) envisages an actual setting aside or alteration of the certificate, not an anticipated outcome.

Reasoning

The court read section 51(2) as requiring an outcome of a review or reference that alters the certificate before adoption is defeated. The respondent's argument that a pending reference stays conversion was rejected because execution is a distinct process from adoption. Additionally, the reference in Misc. E030 of 2025 had been struck out by a ruling dated 8/05/2026 for want of leave, rendering the authorities relied on inapplicable.

03

Costs of the application

Holding

Costs follow the event; the successful applicant was awarded costs.

Reasoning

Guided by section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court applied the established principle that the successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs, and a departure from that rule must be justified by good and sufficient reasons. Having successfully prosecuted the application, the applicant was entitled to costs.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A certificate of taxation need only be adopted as judgment where it has not been set aside or altered and the retainer is not disputed; the mere pendency of a reference does not bar adoption.
  • Adoption of a certificate of taxation is an administrative step distinct from execution, and the certificate remains liable to be set aside or altered through review or reference.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Certificate of Taxation issued in respect of the taxation order made on 08.08.2025 for Kshs. 198,476,956/= be adopted as judgment and decree of the Court, together with interest thereon at 14% per annum from 21.03.2025 until payment in full
  2. 2.The costs of the application be borne by the Client/Respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Chapter 16, Laws of Kenya

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Olendo Orare & Samba Advocates LLP v County Government of Siaya (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E025 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4841 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. 25 of 2025 (Advocate-Client). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4841/eng@2026-07-27

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