Maina t/a Kairu Maina & Associates Advocates v Patel t/a Tedjip Hardware and Stores

Applicant’s case 3. The application is supported by the adavit sworn by Fredrick Kairu Maina, the managing partner of the Applicant rm, avers that his rm rendered legal services for the Respondent in Nakuru ELRC No. E109 of 2018 Solomon Asava v Grish Kumar Patel t/a Tejdip Hardware Stores. 4. After the case concluded, the Applicant avers that the Respondent allegedly refused to pay for the services, prompting the Applicant to le a bill of costs in ELRC Miscellaneous Cause No. E011 of 2024. 5. The Applicant avers that a Certicate of Costs was subsequently issued by the Deputy Registrar on 24th July 2024, and now seeks its adoption by this Honourable court before execution can proceed. 6. The Applicant served the Respondent with the application, but the Respondent failed to le any response thereto. Analysis and determination 7. The court has considered the application, supporting adavit by the Applicant and the annexure thereto. The court has only one issue for determination, which is whether the certicate of costs issued by the taxing ocer should be adopted as the judgement of this Honourable Court. 8. Section 51 of the Advocates Act provides as follows: “ Every application for an order for the taxation of an advocate’s bill or for the delivery of such a bill and the delivering up of any deeds, documents and papers by an advocate shall be made in the matter of that advocate. The certicate of the taxing ocer by whom any bill has been taxed shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the Court, be nal as to the amount of the costs covered thereby, and the Court may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks t, including, in a case where the retainer is not disputed, an order that judgment be entered for the sum certied to be due with costs.” 9. In Muthaura Mugambi Ayugi & Njonjo Advocates v Quest Laboratories Limited [2017] KEELRC 399 (KLR) where the court cited the case of Daly & Figgis Advocates versus Homelex Limited (2013) eKLR which held as follows: “ … Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act … the words of the said section were very clear that where a Certicate of Taxation had neither been set aside nor altered by the Court, and where there was no order of stay, the Certicate was nal as to the amount of costs covered thereby and to allege a dispute at summary Judgement stage would amount to a contradiction of express and mandatory statutory provisions.” 10. Rule 7 of the Advocates(Remuneration) Order provide as follows: “ An advocate may charge interest at 14 per cent per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, provided that such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill shall have been paid or tendered in full.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2148/eng@2026-07-17 2

page 2 of 4

11. In this instant case, on 4th June 2024, a Certicate of Costs was issued by the taxing ocer, Hon. M. Kyalo, in favour of the Applicant Advocate upon successful taxation of the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 14th February, 2024, which was taxed at Kshs.181,650/=. The Respondent has neither led any application to set aside, stay, or appeal against the Taxing Ocer’s decision and the said Certicate of Costs, nor opposed the Applicant’s application. Consequently, the application stands uncontroverted. 12. Accordingly, the court enters judgment in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs. 181,650/= as per the prayer in the application. 13. For interest, the court will rely on the case of Tom Ojienda & Associates v Nairobi City County [2022] KEHC 86 (KLR) where the court stated as follows: “ On the issue of interests on the taxed costs; even though the application is uncontested the Applicant has not tendered any evidence that it raised the issue of interest with its client when tendering the Bill of Costs and is therefore found to have failed to have satised the conditions as set out in Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order which stipulates that: “An advocate may charge interest at 14% per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiry to one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, providing such claim for interest is raised before the amount has been paid or tendered in full.” In any event the Rule clearly stipulates that such claim for interest is limited to costs and disbursements; it does not provide for interest on the full taxed amount as prayed for by the applicant in its application.” 14. In light of the foregoing, the court will allow the interest charge at 14% per annum in accordance with Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. 15. In conclusion, the Notice of Motion dated 20th February 2026 is hereby allowed as follows: a. Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs.181,650/= as provided in Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. b. The sum of Kshs.181,650/= shall be paid with interest at 14% per annum from 4th June 2024 until paid in full. c. A decree shall be issued as set out above; and d. The Respondent will bear the costs of the application. Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAKURU THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026. ANNA NGIBUINI MWAURE JUDGE Order In view of the declaration of measures restricting Court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2148/eng@2026-07-17 3

page 3 of 4

have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open Court. In permitting this course, this Court has been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the Court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this Court the duty of the Court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and aordable resolution of civil disputes. A signed copy will be availed to each party upon payment of Court fees. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2148/eng@2026-07-17 4

page 4 of 4