Kinyanjui Njuguna & Co Advocates v Directline Assurance Co. Limited

d. That it is only fair in the circumstances that judgement be entered for the amount of Kshs. 215,309 only being the sum certified to be due to the applicant herein. e. A certificate of Taxation by Hon. V A. Ochanda Deputy Registrar dated 10th June 2021 is attached. 3. This court takes note that the instant application, hearing notice and submissions were served upon the Respondent but failed to yield any response neither did the Respondent appear in court. 4. Vide written submissions on 24th June 2025, the applicant urges the court to grant the orders as prayed. 5. The court has considered the application in its entirety together with the affidavit, supporting documents attached together with counsel’s written submissions. The issue for determination is whether the application is merited. In considering the above, this court is invited to look into the prayer for judgement in favor of the Applicant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs. 215,309 only, being the certified costs due to the applicant as against the Respondent and whether interest is payable on the same from the date of filing suit. 6. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act provides: " The certificate of the taxing officer by whom any bill has been taxed shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the Court, be final as to the amount of the costs covered thereby, and the Court may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including, in a case where the retainer is not disputed, an order that judgment be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs." 7. This court takes into account the existence of the certificate of taxation by Hon. V A the Deputy Registrar High Court Murang’a dated 10th June 2021. The court also considers that the application is not contested. I therefore find that the application for judgement in the sum of Kshs. 215,309 is merited and should be granted. 8. However, I have noted that whereas the bill was taxed and certificate issued on 10th June 2021, there is no evidence that the same was communicated to the client/respondent. The issue of interest would have been applicable from the date of taxation if the same was indeed communicated to the client / respondent. Prayer no. (2) on interest should therefore fail. 9. This court will however grant the prayer for the costs of this application. 10. In the upshot, the following orders will ensue: i. Prayers 1 and 3 granted as prayed. ii. Prayer 2 dismissed DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025. HON. T. W. OUYA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/10370/eng@2025-07-17 2

page 2 of 2