V Chokaa & Company Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E227 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 492 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court confirmed a Kshs 137,800 fee award against Roy Hauliers, holding that an unpaid court filing is treated as if it was never filed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Certificate of Taxation should be set aside and the Bill of Costs taxed afresh (alleged error of principle, bias, denial of hearing, and an alleged settled fee agreement)
- 2.Whether the advocate's Motion for judgment on the Certificate of Taxation should be allowed
- 3.Whether there was an enforceable agreement on legal fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act
- 4.Whether the claim for 14% interest was warranted
Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer's Ruling should be set aside for alleged bias, denial of hearing and error of principle
The Summons was dismissed; the Respondent did not attend taxation, gave no particulars of the alleged technological failure, adduced no evidence of bias, and its application to arrest the Ruling was not paid for and therefore not before the Taxing Officer.
The Respondent's Motion of 20 September 2024 was overtaken by events for failure to prosecute after it failed to attend the taxation. The later Motion of 25 September 2024 to arrest the Ruling was unpaid and thus not validly on file when the Taxing Officer delivered her Ruling. Allegations of bias and error of principle were unsupported by evidence. A bill of costs may lawfully be taxed in the absence of the parties.
Whether there was an enforceable fee agreement under section 45 of the Advocates Act
No; the fee note relied on was signed only by the advocate's representative and bore no signature of the Respondent or its authorised agent.
Section 45 permits an advocate and client to agree on remuneration before, after or in the course of business, but such agreement is valid and binding only if in writing and signed by the client or its duly authorised agent. The document produced listed the proceedings handled and was signed only on behalf of Chokaa & Co. Advocates by one Khadijah 'Uthman; it lacked the Respondent's signature and was therefore unenforceable for purposes of the Advocates Act.
Whether judgment should be entered on the Certificate of Taxation and at what interest
Judgment was entered for the advocate for Kshs 137,800/- with interest at 14% from the date of taxation, not from 8 August 2024 as sought.
Having found no enforceable fee agreement, the Certificate of Taxation stood. The Respondent's objections on retainer and the alleged Kshs 60,000 settlement failed. On interest, the court moderated the relief: the 14% rate was granted but the Respondent's contention that the plea for interest from the fee-note date lacked statutory or contractual foundation was accommodated by running interest only from the date of taxation.
Legal principles established
#- A filing is only complete and available for consideration by a court upon payment of the filing fees
- An agreement on remuneration under section 45 of the Advocates Act is valid and binding only if in writing and signed by the client or its authorised agent
- A bill of costs may be taxed in the absence of the parties under Rule 76 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Court orders
#- 1.The Summons dated 8 October 2024 is dismissed with costs
- 2.Judgment is entered for the advocate against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 137,800/-
- 3.The Respondent to pay interest on the costs at 14% from the date of taxation
- 4.The advocate to have costs of the Motion
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction over taxation of advocate-client Bill of Costs; Advocates Act and Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Relief refused
#Setting aside the Taxing Officer's Ruling of 30 September 2024 and fresh taxation of the Bill of Costs
No error of principle, no evidence of bias, the Respondent failed to attend taxation and failed to pay filing fees on its application to arrest the Ruling, and no enforceable fee agreement under section 45 was shown
Interest from 8 August 2024 as sought in the Motion
The court granted 14% interest only from the date of taxation, not from the date of the fee note as sought
Costs
Summons dismissed with costs to the advocate; advocate to have costs of the Motion
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.
The Taxing Officer cannot be blamed for declining to consider an application which had not been paid since a filing is only complete and available for consideration by a Court upon payment of the filing fees.
For purposes of the Advocates Act, the Respondent did not have an enforceable agreement on legal fees and the Court so finds.
The Court, therefore, finds that there is no basis for setting aside the Certificate of Taxation on the ground that there was an agreement on fees and that the fees had been settled.
i. The Summons dated 8 October 2024 is without merit and is dismissed with costs.
(a) That judgment is entered for the advocate against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 137,800/-.
(b) The Respondent to pay interest on the costs at 14% from the date of taxation.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the advocate's replying affidavit opposing the Summons was filed on 12 November 2024, but also records that the Respondent filed an application 'seeking the arrest of the Ruling on 25 September 2024' while elsewhere stating it was filed on 27 September 2024
The Respondent argued the 14% interest claim lacked statutory or contractual foundation, yet the court awarded 14% interest, albeit from a later date than sought
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V Chokaa & Company Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E227 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 492 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Chamber Summons dated 8 October 2024 and Amended Motion dated 29 October 2024, Advocate-Client Bill of Costs proceedings). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/492/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.