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 561 (KLR)

V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E236 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 561 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court (advocate-client costs taxation; judge Radido Stephen)
27 February 2025
RSRadido Stephen
1,896 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 confirmed a company must pay its advocate's taxed costs because its fee agreement lacked the client's signature, and unpaid court filings count for nothing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The advocate, V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates, had its advocate-client Bill of Costs taxed on 30 September 2024. Roy Hauliers Ltd filed a Chamber Summons seeking to set aside the Taxing Officer's Ruling and the resultant Certificate of Costs, contending that the Bill was taxed while two of its Motions were pending, that a final fee note had settled the fees, that the advocate's absence from taxation was unexplained, and that the Taxing Officer was biased. The court found the 20 September 2024 Motion had been overtaken by events for want of prosecution, and the 25 September 2024 Motion to arrest the Ruling was never paid for, so the Taxing Officer was entitled to disregard it, a filing being complete only upon payment of filing fees. No particulars of technological failure and no evidence of bias were adduced, and the alleged fees agreement was never placed before the Taxing Officer. The Summons was dismissed with costs. In the advocate's Amended Motion seeking entry of judgment on the Certificate of Taxation, the Respondent relied on section 45 of the Advocates Act, asserting a settled fee of Kshs 60,000/-. The court held that the fee note relied on was signed only by the advocate's representative and not by the Respondent or its authorised agent, so no enforceable agreement existed. Judgment was entered for the advocate for Kshs 72,367/- with 14% interest from the date of taxation, and the advocate was awarded costs of the Motion.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Taxing Officer erred in delivering the Ruling despite pending applications

Holding

No error: the Motion dated 20 September 2024 had been overtaken by events for failure to prosecute, and the Motion dated 25 September 2024 was not validly on record because filing fees had not been paid

Reasoning

The Respondent failed to attend the taxation of 23 September 2024, so the 20 September Motion lapsed. It then filed the 25 September Motion to arrest the Ruling but never paid filing fees. The Taxing Officer verified the CTS system, confirmed non-payment, and properly proceeded to deliver the Ruling on the Bill of Costs.

p. 3
02

Whether there was a binding agreement on fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act

Holding

No: the fee note relied on was signed only by the advocate's representative and lacked the client's signature or that of 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 authorised agent. The document produced was from the advocate, signed by Khadijah 'Uthman for the firm, and bore no signature of the Respondent. It was therefore unenforceable.

p. 5
03

Whether judgment could be entered on the Certificate of Taxation and at what interest

Holding

Judgment entered for the advocate in the sum of Kshs 72,367/- with interest at 14% per annum from the date of taxation

Reasoning

Having dismissed the Summons to set aside the Certificate of Taxation and found no enforceable fees agreement, the court adopted the Certificate of Taxation and entered judgment accordingly, awarding the claimed 14% interest from the date of taxation as sought in the Motion.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A filing is only complete and available for consideration by a Court upon payment of the requisite filing fees.
  • An agreement fixing an advocate's remuneration under section 45 of the Advocates Act is only valid and binding if it is in writing and signed by the client or an 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. 1.The Summons dated 8 October 2024 is dismissed with costs
  2. 2.Judgment is entered for the advocate against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 72,367/-
  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 jurisdiction over advocate-client costs following taxation by the Taxing Officer (Advocates Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E236 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 561 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/561/eng@2025-02-27

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