Emmanuel Elijah Otieno T/A Otieno Law & Company Advocates v Devender Pal Singh & 42 Others

BOKA NAGESHWAR RAO………………………….10TH RESPONDENT AHMAD………………………………………..11TH AJAZ RESPONDENT GIRIJA MAHAPATRA…………………….12TH BALLAV RESPONDENT TAPULOL……………………………..…….13TH RAJEEV RESPONDENT SINGH………………………………….14TH CHANCHAL RESPONDENT SAXENA…………………………………….15TH VARUN RESPONDENT JAIN…………………………………..……16TH RACHNA RESPONDENT JAIN…………………………………….….17TH SANKET RESPONDENT SHARDA………………………………...…..18TH DINESH RESPONDENT RAHUL BHASKARRAO PATIL…………………….…19TH RESPONDENT RAHUL RAJA HARISHCHAND……………………..20TH RESPONDENT CLAIMANT SATHISH RAVI………………………....21ST RESPONDENT NIRMAL KUMAR RESPONDENT 2 |RULING MISC. E105 OF 2024 NARSARIA……………………....22ND

page 2 of 9

KUMAR……………………………………...23RD VIRAIN RESPONDENT KUMAR……………………………………24TH MUKESH RESPONDENT KESAVAN…………………………………..25TH DINESH RESPONDENT VYAS………………………………..….26TH HIMANSHU RESPONDENT YANGAIAH…………………………………...27TH BABU RESPONDENT ANIT VETTUVELIL MARCOS……………………....28TH RESPONDENT JOMINI GEORGE…………………………………..29TH RESPONDENT JITTO VARGHESE……………………………………30TH RESPONDENT AMBIKA THIPPESWAMY………………………...…31ST RESPONDENT RAMANA………………………………32ND LINGARAJU RESPONDENT AMANDEEP SINGH DHAMI………………………...33RD RESPONDENT SASANTH SIVAN………………………………….....34TH RESPONDENT ABRAHAM GEORGE………………………………...35TH RESPONDENT NIXON THANKACHAN…………………………...36TH RESPONDENT 3 |RULING MISC. E105 OF 2024

page 3 of 9

JOSEPH……………………………………..37TH TINTU RESPONDENT RAKEESH AHIRWAR……………………..38TH KUMAR RESPONDENT SAXENA……………………………………..39TH SONAM RESPONDENT SHEKHAR POKALE……………………..…40TH SUDAM RESPONDENT DIPALI DUKARE……………………………....41ST ULHAS RESPONDENT SUNEEL KASUKURTHU……………...…..42ND KUMAR RESPONDENT ARISING FROM ELRCC/1027/2023 DEVENDER PAL SINGH & 41 OTHERS…………………… CLAIMANTS -VERSUSMEDIHEAL GROUP LIMITED & 2 OTHERS…………… RESPONDENTS RULING 1. This ruling relates to the Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 6th February 2026 filed under certificate of urgency seeking judgment for Kshs. 4,303,376, being taxed and certified advocate–client costs, interest at 14% per annum from 11th December 2023, and costs. 4 |RULING MISC. E105 OF 2024

page 4 of 9

2. The Applicant’s case is that the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs was taxed at Kshs. 4,303,376 in the ruling delivered by Hon. Aziza Ajwang on 17th October 2024, and a Certificate of Taxation was thereafter issued. Hon. Lady Justice Stella Rutto dismissed the Respondents' reference on 9th April 2025, thereby upholding the taxation. The amount remains unpaid. 3. The Respondents opposed the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 21 st April 2026. They do not dispute the taxed amount but oppose interest, contending that it was neither sought in the bill nor awarded by the Taxing Officer, that the Certificate of Taxation contains no award of interest, and that the Applicant has not proved delivery of the bill or explained the proposed commencement date of 11th December 2023. The Applicant’s Submissions 4. The Applicant submitted that the certified sum is undisputed and remains unpayable after dismissal of the reference. On interest, the Applicant relied on Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, arguing that the Respondents’ participation in the taxation and subsequent reference demonstrates knowledge of the bill. In rejoinder, the Applicant submitted that interest falls within the 5 |RULING MISC. E105 OF 2024

page 5 of 9

Court’s jurisdiction and urged the Court to consider the prolonged non-payment and inflation. The Respondents’ submissions 5. The Respondents submitted that an earlier application had been withdrawn and marked as such by the Court. Their objection was confined to the issue of interest. They argued that the Applicant had not established the basis for interest from 11th December 2023, particularly as the Certificate of Taxation was issued later. 6. They further submit that Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order requires delivery of the bill to the client and that no evidence had been produced showing the date of delivery. 7. They urged the Court to decline interest at 14% per annum. Analysis and determination 8. The issues for determination are: i. Whether judgment should be entered for Kshs. 4,303,376; ii. Whether the Applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum and, if so, from what date. 6 |RULING MISC. E105 OF 2024

page 6 of 9

9. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act provides that a certificate of the Taxing Officer, unless set aside or altered, is final as to the amount of costs and permits the Court, where the retainer is not disputed, to enter judgment for the certified sum. 10. The Certificate of Taxation remains valid. The reference challenging the taxation was dismissed vide the ruling delivered on 9th April 2025, and the Respondents do not dispute the retainer or certified amount. 11. In the premise, Judgment is therefore entered for Kshs. 4,303,376 as taxed. 12. On the issue of interest, Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order provides that an advocate may charge interest at 14% per annum on costs and disbursements from the expiration of one month after delivery of the bill to the client, provided the claim is raised before the bill is paid or tendered in full. 13. The right to interest under Rule 7 is distinct from taxation. The fact that interest was not included in the Certificate of Taxation does not, by itself, bar the Court from considering a properly raised claim. The decisive 7 |RULING MISC. E105 OF 2024

page 7 of 9

question is whether delivery of the bill, and the date thereof, have been proven. 14. Although participation in the taxation and the filing of a reference demonstrate knowledge of the bill, they do not establish the precise date of such delivery. The claim for interest from 11th December 2023 presupposes delivery by 11th November acknowledgment, 2023. No affidavit correspondence or of service, other evidence proving delivery on that date has been identified. 15. It is also my view that the date of taxation by Hon. Aziza Ajwang of 17th October 2024 does not automatically become the commencement date under Rule 7, since the Rule expressly links interest to the expiry of one month after delivery of the bill, rather than to the date of taxation, the Taxing Officer’s ruling, the Certificate of Taxation or determination of a reference. 16. Accordingly, the claim for interest at 14% per annum from 11th December 2023 is declined, and instead, the court, in its discretionary power and considering inflation, awards interest from 9th April 2025, being the date the Respondent’s reference was declined. 17. In conclusion, the Court grants the following orders: 8 |RULING MISC. E105 OF 2024

page 8 of 9

a. That Judgment is entered for the Applicant against the Respondents for the taxed sum of Kshs. 4,303,376/b. That the prayer for interest at 14% per annum from 11 th December 2023 is declined. c. That the judgment sum shall instead attract interest at court rates from 9th April, 2025 until payment in full. d. I make no orders on costs in respect of this application. 18. It is so ordered. SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. C. N. BAARI JUDGE Appearance: Mr. Otieno present for the Applicant Mr. Terer h/b for Mr. Ondati for the Respondents Ms. Esther S -C/A 9 |RULING MISC. E105 OF 2024

page 9 of 9