V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E237 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 504 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that unpaid court filings don't count, and a fee agreement is unenforceable unless the client signs it — so the haulier had to pay the lawyer's taxed costs.
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 on the ground that pending applications were not considered by the Taxing Officer
- 2.Whether there was an agreement on fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act barring the claim
- 3.Whether the advocate was denied an opportunity to be heard and whether the Taxing Officer was biased
- 4.Whether judgment should be entered on the Certificate of Taxation and whether interest at 14% is payable
Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer erred in proceeding to deliver the Ruling despite pending applications
No error: the Motion dated 20 September 2024 was overtaken by events for failure to prosecute, and the application to arrest the Ruling had not been paid for and thus was not properly on file
The Respondent did not attend the taxation, so its Motion of 20 September lapsed. Its later Motion of 25 September to arrest the Ruling was not paid for by the time the Taxing Officer delivered her Ruling. The Taxing Officer checked the CTS system before proceeding and could not be blamed for disregarding an unpaid filing. No evidence of bias was placed before the Court.
Whether there was an enforceable agreement on fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act
No enforceable agreement existed because the fee note relied upon was signed only by the advocate and not by the client or its authorised agent
Section 45 permits an advocate and client to agree remuneration in writing, signed by the client or authorised agent. The document relied on by the Respondent was issued by the advocate and signed only by Khadijah 'Uthman for Chokaa & Co. Advocates; it bore no signature of the Respondent or its agent. The alleged Kshs 60,000 agreement was therefore unenforceable.
Whether the Certificate of Taxation should be adopted as judgment of the Court with interest
The Amended Motion was allowed: judgment entered for Kshs 86,235/- with 14% interest from the date of taxation
Having found the Summons without merit and no enforceable fee agreement under section 45, the Court adopted the Certificate of Taxation and entered judgment for the taxed sum, awarding interest at 14% per annum from taxation, contrary to the Respondent's contention that the interest claim had no statutory or contractual basis.
Legal principles established
#- An agreement fixing an advocate's remuneration under section 45 of the Advocates Act is only valid and binding if in writing and signed by the client or its duly authorised agent
- A filing is only complete and available for consideration by a court upon payment of the filing fees
- 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 86,235/-
- 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
- Advocate–client costs taxation reference jurisdiction under the Advocates Act and Advocates (Remuneration) Order (not expressly cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the Taxing Officer's Ruling of 30 September 2024 and fresh taxation of the Bill of Costs dated 8 August 2024
No evidence of an agreement on fees, no particulars of the alleged technological failures preventing attendance at taxation, no evidence of bias, and an unpaid filing is not available for consideration
Stay of execution of the Ruling and Certificate of Costs pending hearing inter-partes
The Respondent never paid the deposit to the Court as directed and the Summons was ultimately dismissed
Costs
The Summons dismissed with costs to the advocate; 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.
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 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 86,235/-.
The Respondent to pay interest on the costs at 14% from the date of taxation.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment
The description of the application to arrest the Ruling is inconsistent as to its filing date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E237 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 504 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/504/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.