V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E235 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 582 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court confirmed Roy Hauliers must pay its former advocates Kshs 189,650 plus 14% interest because it never signed a valid fee agreement.
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 of 30 September 2024 and the resultant Certificate of Taxation should be set aside
- 2.Whether the Taxing Officer erred by proceeding to deliver her Ruling while the Respondent's applications were pending, including an unpaid application to arrest the Ruling
- 3.Whether the Respondent was denied an opportunity to be heard or the Taxing Officer exhibited bias
- 4.Whether there was a valid agreement on fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act precluding the taxed costs
- 5.Whether judgment should be entered on the Certificate of Taxation and whether interest at 14% per annum is payable
Key legal issues
#Whether a party can rely on an application that has not been paid for
No; an unpaid filing is not available for consideration by the Court, and the Taxing Officer acted properly in delivering her Ruling
The Respondent filed a Motion on 25 September 2024 seeking to arrest the Ruling but did not pay the requisite filing fees. When the point was raised before the Taxing Officer on 30 September 2024, she retreated to examine the CTS platform, confirmed the application was unpaid, and proceeded to deliver her Ruling on the Bill of Costs.
Whether a fee note signed only by the advocate constitutes an enforceable agreement on fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act
No; such an agreement must be in writing and signed by the client or its duly authorised agent
The Respondent asserted a settled agreement on fees of Kshs 60,000/-. The document it produced was authored by and signed only for the advocate, bearing no signature of the Respondent or its authorised agent. Section 45 requires the client's signature (or that of a duly authorised agent) for validity, so no enforceable agreement existed.
Whether the Respondent was denied a fair hearing or the Taxing Officer was biased
No; the Respondent failed to attend the taxation without particularised justification and produced no evidence of bias
The Respondent attributed its non-attendance at the taxation on 23 September 2024 to technological challenges but gave no particulars. It had notice of the taxation yet filed no submissions or attendance. The allegation of bias against the Taxing Officer was unsupported by any evidence placed before the Court. The earlier Motion dated 20 September 2024 was overtaken by events for failure to prosecute.
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 must be in writing and signed by the client or its duly authorised agent to be valid and binding
- Pursuant to 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 189,650/-
- 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 taxation and recovery of costs under the Advocates Act (first-instance original jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the Taxing Officer's Ruling of 30 September 2024 and taxation of the Bill of Costs afresh
No basis was shown: the unpaid application to arrest the Ruling was not available for consideration, the alleged fee agreement was not produced, no particulars of technological failure were given, and no evidence of bias was placed before the Court
Respondent's contention that the claim for 14% interest had no foundation
The Court nonetheless awarded interest at 14% from the date of taxation
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.
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.
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 189,650/-.
The Respondent to pay interest on the costs at 14% from the date of taxation.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, the court or station in which it was delivered; these have been inferred from context
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E235 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 582 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/582/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.