K.m Mburu & Associates v Javisapa Enterprises Limited

November, 2023 and had it taxed at Kshs. 205,338/=. A certificate of cost was thereafter issued for the said Amount. 3. To the best of his knowledge, the respondent had not challenged the taxation carried out in any manner and thus urged the court to adopt the certificate of costs as a judgment of this court pursuant to provisions of Rule 51 of the Advocates Act. 4. The respondent opposed this Application through her replying affidavit dated 29th May, 2025 and deponed that her company and the Applicant/Advocate were embroiled in various suits concerning the advocate's costs, some of which had been determined, while others were still undergoing the taxation process. Specifically, in Machakos HCC Misc App No E242 of 2023, the taxing master had found that the advocate owed her company a sum of Kshs. 1,031,150/= and urged this court to set off the sums owed under this certificate of costs from the sum the advocate was adjudged to owe her company. 5. The respondent did submit that her proposal was just and would mitigate against any future expense her company would be forced to incur, should the advocate opt to enforce the decree that may issue herein. B. Analysis & Determination 6. I have carefully considered the Application, its Supporting Affidavit, and the Respondent’s Replying Affidavit. The only issue for determination is whether the certificate of taxation dated 14th November, 2024, should be converted into judgment and/or whether the same should be set off as against the decree issued in favour of the respondent in Machakos HCCC Misc No. E242 of 2023. 7. The respondent does not dispute the taxed amount and/or retainer. Where the same is not disputed, Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act comes into play and provides that; “ 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 judgement be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs”. 8. The prayers sought herein are therefore merited and should be granted. The respondent, on the other hand, did pray for an order of set off, against what is due to each party. Though the said request is logical and merited, it should have been made through a formal application for consideration by this court. In the alternative, after all the advocate-client bills of costs have been taxed, the parties can undertake a reconciliation of the fee owed and set off the same against the earlier payments made to the advocate herein. C. Disposition 9. Judgment is therefore entered for the Advocate/Applicant, as per the certificate of taxation dated 14th November, 2024 in the sum of Kshs. 205,338/= plus interest at 14% from 14th November, 2024 until the date of payment in full. 10. The costs of this Application, assessed at Kshs. 20,000/= too is awarded to the Advocate/Applicant. 11. It is so ordered. READ, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KIAMBU ON THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/12381/eng@2025-08-28 2

page 2 of 3

FRANCIS RAYOLA OLEL JUDGE DELIVERED ON THE VIRTUAL PLATFORM, TEAM THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025. In the presence of: ………………………………………………………..Appellant ……………………………………………………….Respondent ……………………………………………………….Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/12381/eng@2025-08-28 3

page 3 of 3