John Bwire & Associates Advocates v Sanlam Ltd
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a client's challenge to a Kshs 9 million legal fee bill because the client skipped a mandatory objection step before filing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competency of the reference under paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
The reference was incompetent for three reasons: filed in the same cause rather than a separate miscellaneous cause; no certified proceedings or certificate of costs annexed; and no notice of objection on record identifying the items objected to.
Paragraph 11(1) requires a notice in writing identifying the items of taxation objected to, and paragraph 11(2) requires the taxing officer's reasons to frame the reference. Following Isaac Onyango & Co. Advocates v Hakika Transport Services, the court held these requirements define the scope of the reference and cannot be cured under Article 159(2)(d). The client also accepted the sums taxed off, undermining its own objection.
Stay of execution pending the reference
The stay application failed as moot because the reference was struck out, and in any event on the merits: no substantial loss beyond a refundable liquidated sum, no security offered, and the applicable rules did not squarely apply.
Order 22 rule 22 applies to a court executing a decree and Order 42 rule 6 to appeals; neither applied to enforcement of a taxed bill. Under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, execution requires judgment entered on the certificate of costs, which had not occurred. A demand letter cannot substitute for a decree, and a successful party is entitled to the fruits of its success.
Costs of both applications
Costs followed the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; the Advocate was awarded the costs of both applications.
The court found no good reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event, since both applications by the client failed.
Legal principles established
#- A reference under paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order must be brought as a separate miscellaneous cause, with certified proceedings and a certificate of costs, and must be preceded by a notice of objection identifying the items objected to.
- The requirement of a notice of objection under paragraph 11(1) is not a technicality curable under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution.
- A taxing officer's ruling is not in itself an executable decree; execution follows only upon judgment entered under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 14th October 2025 is incompetent and is hereby struck out.
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 15th October 2025 is dismissed.
- 3.The Advocate shall have the costs of both applications.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 22 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Bwire & Associates Advocates v Sanlam Ltd", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E007 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6145/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.