Steven Muregi Chege T/A S. M. Chege & Company Advocates v Cannon General Insurance (k) Limited

entitled to charge interest at 14% per annum on the taxed costs from the dated of filing the Bill of Costs in line with the Advocates Remuneration Order. 4. The Respondent has opposed the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Leonorah Shigoli, the Legal Manager of the Respondent. It is deposed that the Respondent made a payment of Kshs 43,140 which amount was not disclosed during taxation; that the Respondent is ready and willing to settle the applicant’s fees as soon as it is presented with the correct amount outstanding between the Respondent and the Applicant and that the Applicant did not serve the Respondent with a notice that interest would accrue on the amount at 14% per annum if not settled within 30 days. 5. In response to the Replying Affidavit, the Applicant filed a Further Affidavit sworn on 28th July 2025 in which it is deposed that there is still unsettled difference of Kshs 129,674.20 and that the Applicant is entitled to interest at 14% per annum starting from 30 days after service of the Bill of Costs until payment in full; that the Bill of Costs was served on the Respondent on 19th March 2025. 6. The application was canvassed through written submissions. The Applicant has argued that the taxed costs are not disputed given that no Reference has been filed; that payment of Kshs 43,140 by the Respondent to the Applicant has been done and confirmed and that the Applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed costs. The Applicant cited Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, and Kithi & Company Advocates v Menengai Downs Limited [2015] KEHC 6334 (KLR) and Lubulellah & Associates Advicates v Vinavak Builders Limited (Commercial Miscellaneous Application E599 of 2022) (2024) KEHC 6287 (KLR) (Commercial & Tax) (15 May 2014) (Ruling) to support the submissions that the Applicant is entitled to seek interest on the taxed costs. 7. The Applicant further submitted that it is a requirement under Rule 7 that the claim for interest is raised before settlement is made in full and that the taxed costs were still outstanding when this application was filed and a claim for interest made as one of the prayers. The Applicant relied on Njogu and Ngugi Advocates v Thara (Miscellaneous Application E131 of 2021) [2024] KEHC 9775 (KLR) (31 July 2024) (Ruling) where the court found that the claim for interest had been made as a prayer in the application before the court and proceeded to award the same. 8. On the issue of who should bear the costs of this application, the Applicant has submitted that the Respondent should pay the costs for the reason that the Respondent necessitated the filing of this application when it failed to settle the taxed costs. 9. The Respondent submitted only on one issue, that interest is not due unless the client had been given express notice in that regard and the amount due from the client has been ascertained. The Respondent relied on Ngaywa & Kibet Co. Advocates v Monarch Insurance Co. Ltd [2025] KEHC 10669 (KLR) to support its submissions. Determination 10. I have considered the application and the grounds advanced in support of the same. I have also considered the grounds in opposition. From the record, it is clear that the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs was taxed at Kshs 178,814.20 as evidenced by the Certificate of Taxation dated 15th May 2025. Out of this amount, the Respondent has paid to the Applicant Kshs 43,140. This payment has been acknowledged by the Applicant. My quick calculation gives me a balance remaining unsettled is Kshs 135,674.20 as the unsettled amount. 11. To my mind, the following issues arise for determination: i. Whether the application dated 4th June 2025 is merited. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/16414/eng@2025-10-23 2

page 2 of 4

ii. 12. Whether the applicant should be awarded interests on the taxed costs. I have read Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act 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 recovered thereby; and the court may make such orders in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including where the retainer is not disputed an order that judgment be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs. 13. The Certificate of Taxation was not challenged by setting aside or alteration by the court. The court in Lubulellah & Associates Advocates Vs N. K. Brothers Limited (2014) eKLR stated that: The law is very clear that once a taxing master has taxed the costs, issued a Certificate of Costs and there is no reference against his ruling or there has been a ruling and a determination made and not set aside and/or altered, no other action would be required from the court save to enter judgment. An applicant is not required to file suit for the recovery of costs. The certificate of costs is final as to the amounts of the costs and the court would be quite in order to enter judgment in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent herein for the taxed sum indicated in the Certificate of Taxation that was issued on 25th November 2012.” 14. I am therefore persuaded that the Applicant is entitled to grant of prayer number 2 of the Application. 15. In respect of the second issue, I have considered the relevant authorities cited by the parties herein. I have also read section 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order which provides that: An advocate may charge interests at 14% per annum on his disbursement and costs whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, such claim for interests is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full. 16. 17. 18. To my mind, an Applicant seeking interest on his taxed costs must demonstrate that: a. That one month has expired from the time he delivered his bill to the client; and, b. He has raised his ‘claim’ for interest before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full.” In Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates v County Government of Nairobi (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E027 of 2020) [2025], the court observed thus: “ 20. Under the cited Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, to lawfully claim the 14% interest, or any part thereof, on the taxed bill of costs, the advocate must: (a)Serve the itemized bill of costs to the client, (b) Explicitly include a demand for interest at 14% in the bill, and (c)Wait for 30 days to lapse after service before interest begins to accrue. 21. If the advocate fails to include the interest demand in the bill, then: (a)The Taxing Officer lacks jurisdiction to award that interest during taxation; and (b)The Court cannot include interest in the certificate of taxation or any resulting judgment adopting the certificate of costs.” The Applicant argued that it served the Respondent with the Bill of Costs on 19th March 2025. The record shows that the Applicant served the Respondent with the Notice of Taxation dated 19th March https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/16414/eng@2025-10-23 3

page 3 of 4

2025. That Bill of Costs was attached to that Notice of Taxation. That Bill of Costs does not include a claim of interest at 14% per annum. 19. Further, after taxation of the bill, the Applicant notified the Respondent, through its counsel, that the Bill of Costs was taxed at Kshs 178,814.20 through a letter dated 16th May 2025. The letter demanded settlement of the taxed costs within 7 days from that date. The Certificate of Taxation was enclosed in that letter. 20. I have perused the letter under reference. It does not notify the Respondent that the Applicant would be seeking interest at 14% per annum on the taxed costs. The Applicant has not demonstrated that it has met the threshold set in the Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates case. 21. Consequently, I agree with the Respondent that it was not given express notice that interest at 14% per annum was due to the Applicant. 22. The Application succeeds only in as far as the prayer for entry of judgment against the Respondent in respect of the taxed costs as per Certificate of Taxation. However, given that Kshs 43,140 has been paid and payment acknowledged by the Applicant, the amount due and owing to the Applicant is the balance, amounting to Kshs 135,674.20. 23. I have considered the argument by the Respondent that the amount of taxed costs payable to the Applicant has not been ascertained. I do not agree with the Respondent on this issue. There is a Certificate of Taxation confirming taxed costs and it is settled that Kshs 43,140 has been paid and payment acknowledged. As far as the court is concerned, there is no ambiguity as to the amount of taxed costs payable to the Applicant. 24. In conclusion, I enter judgment for the Applicant in the sum of Kshs 135,674.20, being the balance of unpaid taxed costs. The claim for interest at 14% per annum from the date the Bill of Costs was served until payment in full fails for the reasons given in this ruling. 25. The Applicant is at liberty to execute the judgment against the Respondent. The Applicant is also granted costs of this application. 26. Orders shall issue accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 23RD OCTOBER 2025. S. N. MUTUKU JUDGE In the presence of: Ms Muregi for the Applicant Ms Wangechi Mwangi for the Respondent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/16414/eng@2025-10-23 4

page 4 of 4