Rotich & 4 others v Teacher Service Commission & 4 others

2. 2. This Honourable Court be pleased to enter judgment for the 4th Respondent/Applicant for the taxed costs of Kshs. 259,408.50/= with interest at 14% per annum against the Petitioners until payment in full. 3. This Honourable Court be pleased to award costs of this application to the 4thRespondent/ Applicant and that the same be borne by the Petitioners. The application is brought under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, section 1A &1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 21 Rule 9(1)(D), Order 51 Rule of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, Rule 7 of the Advocates Renumeration Order and all other enabling provisions of the law. 4th Respondent/Applicant’s supporting adavit 3. The application is supported by the adavit of Jacqueline Lorraine Akello, the 4th Respondent’s advocate, sworn on even date as the application. 4. On 2nd October 2025, the 4th Respondent/Applicant avers that it led a Party and Party Bill of Costs, which was duly served upon the Petitioners but went unopposed. 5. The 4th Respondent/Applicant avers that the matter proceeded before Deputy Registrar Hon. K. Kibelion (SPM) on 19th November 2025, who taxed the bill at Kshs.259,403.50/= and issued a Certicate of Taxation on 1st December 2025. 6. The 4th Respondent/Applicant further prays for judgment and a decree in favour of the 4th Respondent for the taxed costs, with interest at 14% per annum until payment in full. 7. At the time of writing this ruling, the Petitioners/Respondent have not led any response to the said application. 8. The 4th Respondent/Applicant led submissions in regard to the application. 4th Respondent/Applicant’s submissions 9. The 4th Respondent/Applicant submitted that under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, a Certicate of Taxation is nal and binding unless set aside or altered by the court. The 4th Respondent/Applicant relied on the case of Kipkorir,Titoo & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board [2005] KECA 325 (KLR) and Machira & Co. Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu & Another [2012] KECA 245 (KLR), arming that an unchallenged certicate provides a sucient basis for entry of judgment. In this case, taxation was properly conducted by a competent ocer, the bill taxed at Kshs.259,403.50/ =, and a certicate issued on 1st December 2025, with no reference led thus attaining nality and entitling the Applicant to judgment and a decree. 10. The 4th Respondent/Applicant further argued that successful litigants should not be deprived of the fruits of their judgments, and under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, an advocate may charge 14% interest per annum on taxed costs from one month after delivery of the bill to prevent prejudice from delayed payment. Since the Petitioners have not settled the taxed costs, the Applicant seeks interest until full payment, or alternatively under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, concluding that the 4th Respondent’s application is meritorious and meets the threshold for entry of judgment and issuance of a decree. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2159/eng@2026-07-17 2

page 2 of 4

Analysis and determination 11. The court has considered the application, supporting adavit by the 4th Respondent/Applicant and the annexures 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 judgment of this Honourable Court. 12. 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.” 13. In Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N K Brothers Limited [2014] KEHC 8685 (KLR) the court held as follows; “ The court agrees with the Applicant that so long as the Respondent did not provide the court with any proof that the Certicate of Costs issued on 29th January 2014 was set aside and/or altered or that there were any proceedings pending before a court of competent jurisdiction, the court has no option but to be persuaded by the Applicant’s submissions that it was entitled to entry of judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act as it had prayed for in its application. The Applicant ought not to be barred from enjoying the fruits of its hard work. This court also has jurisdiction under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act to make any order that it deems t.” 14. 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.” 15. In this case, the taxing ocer considered the 4th Respondent/Applicant’s Party and Party Bill of Costs led on 2nd October 2025, which was unopposed despite service on the Petitioners. The matter proceeded before Deputy Registrar Hon. K. Kibelion (SPM) on 19th November 2025, who taxed the bill at Kshs.259,403.50/= and issued a Certicate of Taxation on 1st December 2025. The Court holds that, since the application was unopposed, it should be allowed as prayed, in accordance with the terms of section 51 of the Advocates Act. 16. 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 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2159/eng@2026-07-17 3

page 3 of 4

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.” 17. Having considered the application, the adavits and submissions of the Applicant alongside applicable law, the court will allow the interest at 14% per annum in accordance with Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. 18. In the result, the Notice of Motion dated 1st December 2025 is hereby allowed as follows: i. Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the 4th Respondent/Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs.259,403.50/=. ii. The sum of Kshs.259,403.50/= shall be paid with interest at 14% per annum from 1st December 2025 until in full payment. iii. A decree shall be issued as set out above; and iv. The 4th Respondent/Applicant will be paid 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 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. ANNA NGIBUINI MWAURE JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2159/eng@2026-07-17 4

page 4 of 4