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 Allowed· [2025] KEELRC 560 (KLR)

V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E234 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 560 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Court type jurisdiction - taxing officer appeal/motion matter heard at Nairobi)
27 February 2025
RSRadido Stephen
1,898 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates caused its advocate-client Bill of Costs to be taxed on 30 September 2024, resulting in a Certificate of Taxation of Kshs 154,324/-. Roy Hauliers Ltd filed a Chamber Summons seeking, among other things, stay of execution of the ruling, setting aside of the Taxing Officer's decision and a fresh taxation, arguing that pending applications were ignored, a fee agreement existed, the advocate failed to attend taxation due to technical challenges, and the Taxing Officer was biased. The advocate opposed, noting the Respondent's unpaid application, its non-attendance at taxation, and Rule 76 permitting taxation in the absence of parties. The Court found the Motion dated 20 September 2024 had been overtaken by events, the application to arrest the ruling had not been paid for (a filing being complete only upon payment of fees), no particulars of technological failure were given, and no evidence of bias was tendered. The Summons was dismissed. Separately, the advocate's Motion sought judgment on the Certificate of Taxation with 14% interest. The Respondent relied on a fee note allegedly evidencing a settled fee of Kshs 60,000/-, invoking section 45 of the Advocates Act. The Court held that a valid section 45 agreement must be in writing and signed by the client or its authorised agent; the fee note was signed only by the advocate's representative, so no enforceable fee agreement existed. Judgment was entered for the advocate for Kshs 154,324/- with interest at 14% from the date of taxation, the Summons dismissed with costs and the advocate awarded costs of the Motion. Delivered virtually at Nairobi on 27 February 2025 by Radido Stephen, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of a fee agreement under section 45 of the Advocates Act

Holding

The fee note relied on by the Respondent was signed only by the advocate and not by the Respondent or its authorised agent, hence no enforceable agreement on legal fees existed

Reasoning

Section 45 permits an advocate and client to agree on remuneration before, after or in the course of business, but such agreement must be in writing and signed by the client or authorised agent. The document produced was authored and signed only by the advocate's representative, Khadijah 'Uthman, and bore no signature from the Respondent. It therefore failed to meet the statutory requirement and could not displace the taxed advocate-client costs.

p. 5
02

Whether the Taxing Officer erred in proceeding to rule despite pending applications

Holding

The Taxing Officer acted properly because the application dated 25 September 2024 had not been paid for, and a filing is only complete upon payment of filing fees

Reasoning

The Respondent's Motion dated 20 September 2024 was overtaken by events when it failed to attend the taxation. The later Motion dated 25 September 2024 seeking to arrest the ruling had not attracted filing fees by the time parties appeared. The Taxing Officer verified the CTS platform before ruling. Since an unpaid filing is not available for consideration, the Taxing Officer committed no error of principle in delivering the ruling on the Bill of Costs.

p. 3
03

Entitlement to interest on taxed costs

Holding

Judgment entered with interest at 14% from the date of taxation notwithstanding the Respondent's objection based on section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Reasoning

The advocate sought interest at 14% per annum from 8 August 2024. The Respondent argued the claim was not founded on statute or contract. The Court nonetheless awarded interest at 14% but pegged it to the date of taxation rather than the date of the fee note, aligning the award with the taxation outcome.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A filing is only complete and available for consideration by a court upon payment of filing fees
  • An agreement fixing an advocate's remuneration under section 45 of the Advocates Act is only valid 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 154,324/-
  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
Advocates Act, taxation of advocate-client bill of costs under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E234 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 560 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/560/eng@2025-02-27

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