V Chokaa & Company Limited v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E238 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 493 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an unpaid court filing is invalid and enforced a taxed legal bill against Roy Hauliers with interest, because no valid signed fee agreement existed.
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 Taxing Officer's Ruling and resultant Certificate of Taxation should be set aside on the grounds of denial of hearing, pending applications, bias, error of principle and an alleged agreement on fees
- 2.Whether there was a valid enforceable agreement on legal fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act
- 3.Whether the advocate is entitled to judgment on the Certificate of Taxation and interest at 14% per annum
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent was denied a fair hearing before the Taxing Officer
No. The Respondent failed to attend the taxation, its Motion dated 20 September 2024 was overtaken by events, and the Motion dated 25 September 2024 was not paid for and therefore was not validly on file.
The Respondent was served with a hearing notice but did not attend or file submissions. Its second application to arrest the Ruling had not been paid for by 1145 hours on the Ruling date. The Taxing Officer confirmed this on the CTS platform before proceeding. A filing is complete only upon payment of filing fees, so the Taxing Officer cannot be blamed for ignoring it. Allegations of bias were unsupported by any evidence.
Whether there was an enforceable agreement on legal fees 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, but such an agreement is valid and binding only if in writing and signed by the client or duly authorised agent. The document produced was from the advocate, signed only on behalf of Chokaa & Co. Advocates, and not by the Respondent. No agreement was annexed to the earlier Motion either. The Respondent therefore had no enforceable agreement on legal fees.
Whether judgment should be entered on the Certificate of Taxation with 14% interest
Yes. The Summons having failed and no enforceable fees agreement existing, the Motion for judgment on the Certificate of Taxation was allowed with interest at 14% from the date of taxation.
The advocate's Bill of Costs was taxed on 30 September 2024 and the challenge to the Certificate of Taxation failed. The Respondent's contention that interest at 14% lacked statutory or contractual foundation under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act did not prevail; the Court allowed the Motion and entered judgment for the taxed sum with interest at 14% from taxation.
Legal principles established
#- A filing is only complete and available for consideration by a Court upon payment of the filing fees.
- An agreement fixing an advocate's remuneration is valid and binding under section 45 of the Advocates Act only if in writing and signed by the client or its authorised agent.
- Under Rule 76 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order a Bill of Costs may be taxed in the absence of the parties.
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 211,235/-
- 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
- First-instance jurisdiction over advocate-client taxation and applications for judgment on a Certificate of Taxation
Relief refused
#Setting aside the Taxing Officer's Ruling of 30 September 2024 and taxation of the Bill of Costs afresh
The Respondent did not pay filing fees for its application to arrest the Ruling, attended no taxation, gave no particulars of the alleged technological failure, adduced no evidence of bias, and produced no written and signed fees agreement as required by section 45 of the Advocates Act
Costs
The Summons dismissed with costs; the 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 Summons dated 8 October 2024 is without merit and is dismissed with costs.
That judgment is entered for the advocate against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 211,235/-.
The Respondent to pay interest on the costs at 14% from the date of taxation.
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.
Issues in the judgment
#Discrepancy in the decretal sum: the Motion sought judgment for Kshs 211,325/- but the final order entered judgment for Kshs 211,235/-, and paragraph 32 refers to an agreement of Kshs 60,000/- without reconciling these figures.
The Chamber Summons sought stay and setting aside of the Taxing Officer's Ruling, but the disposition introduces the first order as 'The Summons dated 8 October 2024' while the application dated 8 October 2024 was the Amended Motion dated 29 October 2024's companion; the numbering of orders in the final orders appears compressed.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V Chokaa & Company Limited v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E238 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 493 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/493/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.