Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2025] KEELRC 583 (KLR)

V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E241 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 583 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 February 2025
1,893 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 ruled that unpaid court filings count for nothing and fee notes signed only by the lawyer are unenforceable, ordering the client to pay the taxed legal costs with interest.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The advocate, V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates, caused its Advocate–Client Bill of Costs to be taxed on 30 September 2024, yielding a Certificate of Taxation for Kshs 86,235/-. Roy Hauliers Ltd filed a Chamber Summons seeking stay of execution of the taxation Ruling, setting aside of the Ruling and Certificate, and re-taxation, alleging that the Taxing Officer taxed the Bill while two Motions were pending, exhibited bias, erred in principle, and denied it a hearing; it also asserted a settled fee agreement. The advocate opposed, contending that the Respondent failed to attend taxation, that its application to arrest the Ruling was unpaid for and thus not validly filed, and that no section 45 fee agreement existed. The advocate separately moved for judgment on the Certificate of Taxation with 14% interest. The Court found the Respondent's application to arrest the Ruling was not paid for and therefore not available for consideration, that the earlier Motion was overtaken by events, that no particulars of bias or technological failures were given, and that the alleged fee agreement bore only the advocate's signature and was unenforceable under section 45 of the Advocates Act. The Summons was dismissed with costs, judgment was entered for the advocate for Kshs 86,235/- with 14% interest from the date of taxation, and the advocate was awarded costs of the Motion.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Certificate of Taxation ought to be set aside

Holding

The Summons was dismissed; the Respondent failed to show error of principle, bias, or denial of the right to be heard, and its Motion to arrest the Ruling was not paid for.

Reasoning

The Respondent did not attend the taxation, offering no particulars of alleged technological failures. Its Motions of 20 and 25 September 2024 were either overtaken by events or unpaid for and thus not validly on file. Allegations of bias were unsupported by any evidence. The Taxing Officer was entitled to proceed and deliver the Ruling.

p. 4
02

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

Holding

No enforceable agreement existed because the fee note was signed only by the advocate, not by the Respondent or its authorised agent.

Reasoning

Section 45 permits an advocate and client to agree remuneration before, after or during contentious business, but such agreement is valid and binding only if in writing and signed by the client or authorised agent. The document relied upon bore only the advocate's signature and could not bar the taxed costs.

p. 5
03

Whether judgment should be entered on the Certificate of Taxation with interest

Holding

The advocate's Amended Motion was allowed; judgment entered for Kshs 86,235/- with 14% interest from the date of taxation.

Reasoning

Having found no enforceable fee agreement and no merit in the challenge to the taxation, the Court adopted the Certificate of Taxation and entered judgment as sought, awarding interest at 14% per annum from taxation.

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 on 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 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 86,235/-
  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 and taxation (Advocates Act; 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 E241 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 583 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/583/eng@2025-02-20

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