Asige Keverenge & Anyanzwa Advocates v Mbarak & 3 others (Miscellaneous Application E050 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4925 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court converted an advocate's fee certificate into judgment but refused interest because it was never claimed in the bill of costs before the client paid in full.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Should the Certificate of Costs be converted into a judgment and decree of this Court?
- 2.Is interest payable upon the certified sum at 16% per annum with effect from 5th November 2025?
- 3.Who should bear the costs of this motion?
Key legal issues
#Whether the Certificate of Costs should be converted into judgment and decree
Judgment was entered in terms of the certificate but recorded as fully satisfied; no decree or execution to issue since the debt had been paid
Section 51(2) confers discretion, and the sole practical office of such judgment is to found execution. With the certified sum of Kshs. 770,031.67 paid in full, a decree would arm a paid creditor and expose clients to double payment. The court therefore entered judgment and simultaneously recorded it as fully satisfied, preserving the applicant's entitlement while protecting the clients' discharge.
Whether interest at 16% per annum from 5th November 2025 was payable
Prayer for interest declined
The claim failed at three points: paragraph 7 caps interest at 14% and no basis for 16% was pleaded; interest runs from one month after delivery of the bill, not the date of taxation, and delivery was not shown; and decisively, interest was never claimed in the bill of costs, as required by Otieno, Ragot v Kenindia. Payment in full had also closed the proviso.
Costs of the motion
Applicant awarded costs assessed summarily at Kshs. 30,000
Costs are discretionary under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and ordinarily follow the event, but the applicant only partly succeeded: he obtained judgment though the debt was paid, and failed on interest through his own omission. To avoid endless taxation over enforcement of a bill of costs, the court assessed costs itself rather than sending them for taxation.
Legal principles established
#- A taxing officer's certificate is final as to the amount of costs covered thereby unless set aside or altered by the court
- Judgment under section 51(2) is discretionary, not entered as of right
- A claim for interest under paragraph 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order must be raised in the bill of costs before payment in full
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Applicant against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents/Clients jointly and severally in the sum of Kshs. 770,031.67 in terms of the Certificate of Cost dated 13th January 2026
- 2.The judgment is recorded as fully satisfied; no decree shall issue and no execution shall lie in respect of that sum
- 3.Prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion seeking interest at 16% per annum from 5th November 2025 is declined
- 4.The Applicant shall have the costs of the motion, assessed at Kshs. 30,000, payable within thirty (30) days; no further taxation shall be necessary
- 5.The file is closed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Cap 16; paragraph 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; sections 1A, 1B, 1C and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21; Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Interest at 16% per annum from 5th November 2025 on the certified sum
Interest was never claimed in the bill of costs; the rate claimed exceeds the 14% allowed under paragraph 7; the proviso bars a claim after payment in full
Issuance of a decree executable against the respondents
The certified sum had been paid in full before the ruling, so a decree would serve no purpose and could expose clients to double payment
Costs
The Applicant shall have the costs of the motion, assessed by the court at Kshs. 30,000, payable within thirty (30) days of the date of the ruling; no further taxation shall be necessary.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
To issue a decree for a sum already discharged would be to arm a creditor who has been paid, and to expose these four clients to the hazard of paying a second time for a service rendered once.
This means that the judgment is not entered as of right. The court may refuse to enter judgment for good cause even without a dispute over the retainer.
it was incumbent upon the advocate to put the client on notice that he intended to claim the interest at the point at which he drew the Bill of Costs. He did not.
A court cannot draw out of a provision more than the provision holds.
(a) Judgment is hereby entered for the Applicant, ASIGE KEVERENGE & ANYANZWA ADVOCATES, against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents/Clients, jointly and severally, in the sum of Kshs. 770,031.67 in terms of the Certificate of Cost dated 13th January 2026 issued by the Deputy Registrar of this court.
(b) The said judgment is recorded as fully satisfied, the certified sum of Kshs. 770,031.67 having been paid in full; and for the avoidance of doubt no decree shall issue, and no execution shall lie, in respect of that sum.
The account between advocate and client, having been taxed, certified and now paid, is closed; and the court declines to reopen it for an interest that was never asked for until the asking was too late.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment identifies the certified figure as Kshs. 770,031.67 but the prayer claims Kshs. 770,031/=; the court corrected the pleading against the certificate
Supporting affidavit deponent's quoted wording is grammatically defective but immaterial
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Asige Keverenge & Anyanzwa Advocates v Mbarak & 3 others (Miscellaneous Application E050 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4925 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Misc. Application No. E050 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4925/eng@2026-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.