Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 498 (KLR)

V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E240 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 498 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court (court not expressly named in the extract; Judge Radido Stephen presiding)
20 February 2025
RSRadido Stephen
1,914 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ordered Roy Hauliers to pay its former advocate Kshs 181,675 plus interest, ruling that an unsigned fee agreement cannot reduce a lawyer's taxed bill.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The advocate, V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates, taxed its Advocate–Client Bill of Costs on 30 September 2024, obtaining a Certificate of Taxation. Roy Hauliers Ltd filed a Chamber Summons dated 8 October 2024 seeking stay of execution of the Taxing Officer's Ruling, setting aside of the Ruling and re-taxation, alleging that the Taxing Officer ignored two pending applications, that there was a settled fees agreement, that the advocate failed to attend taxation, and that the Taxing Officer was biased and had erred in principle. The advocate opposed, contending that the Respondent's applications were unpaid and unprosecuted, and that no section 45 fees agreement existed. Separately, the advocate filed an Amended Motion dated 29 October 2024 seeking judgment on the Certificate of Taxation in the sum of Kshs 186,675/- plus interest at 14% per annum. The Court found the Respondent's applications before the Taxing Officer were either overtaken by events or unpaid and therefore not available for consideration, that the allegation of bias had no evidential support, and that no valid fees agreement existed since the fee note bore only the advocate's signature and not that of the client. The Summons was dismissed with costs. The Motion was allowed: judgment was entered for the advocate in Kshs 181,675/- with interest at 14% from the date of taxation, and the advocate was awarded costs of the Motion. Judgment was delivered virtually in Nairobi on 20 February 2025 by Radido Stephen, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent was denied a fair hearing and whether the Taxing Officer was biased

Holding

The Respondent was not denied a hearing; it failed to attend taxation without particulars, and no evidence of bias was placed before the Court

Reasoning

The Respondent explained its non-attendance by unspecified technological challenges and alleged bias without proof. The Motion of 20 September 2024 was overtaken by events for want of prosecution, and the 25 September 2024 Motion to arrest the Ruling was unpaid and therefore not properly before the Taxing Officer, who was entitled to proceed to deliver her Ruling.

p. 4
02

Whether there was an enforceable agreement on legal fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act

Holding

No enforceable agreement existed because the fee note relied on bore only the advocate's signature and not that of the Respondent or its authorised agent

Reasoning

Section 45 permits an advocate and client to agree 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 duly authorised agent. The document produced was from the advocate, signed only on behalf of Chokaa & Co. Advocates, and lacked the Respondent's signature.

p. 5

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 under section 45 of the Advocates Act is binding only if in writing and signed by the client or its duly 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. 1.The Summons dated 8 October 2024 is dismissed with costs
  2. 2.The Amended Motion dated 29 October 2024 is allowed: judgment entered for the advocate against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 181,675/-
  3. 3.The Respondent to pay interest on the costs at 14% from the date of taxation
  4. 4.The advocate to have costs of the Motion
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction to review a Taxing Officer's decision and enter judgment on a Certificate of Taxation (Advocates Act and Advocates (Remuneration) Order); specific enabling article not cited in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E240 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 498 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/498/eng@2025-02-20

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