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

March 2025 on which date the Respondent was represented by an advocate in opposing the Bill; that the Bill was taxed at Kshs 121,574.40 as demonstrated in the Certificate of Taxation dated 15th May 2025; that the Respondent was served with the Certificate of Taxation and asked to settle the taxed amount but failed to do so and that the Applicant is entitled to charge 14% interest per annum on the taxed costs as per the Advocates Remuneration Order from the date of filing the Bill of Costs until payment in full. Replying Afidavit 3. The Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit in opposition to the Application in which he has deposed that the Applicant has not formally demanded for payment of the actual taxed amount as required under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014 with a notice that interest would accrue on the amount at 14% per annum if settlement is not done within 30 days. He has also deposed that he had made payment of Kshs 28,950 on 16th May 2023 which was received by the Applicant but the Applicant failed to inform the Taxing Officer at the time of taxation. 4. In response to the Replying Affidavit, the Applicant filed a Further Affidavit sworn on 18th July 2025 in which the Applicant denied receiving the sum of Ksh 28,950 as alleged and stated that the annexure alleging payment of that amount does not bear the Applicants official stump acknowledging receipt as is the norm; that the Applicant is entitled to 14% interest starting 30 days after the date of service of the Bill of Costs until payment in full; that the Respondent was served on 19th March 2015 as record shows and that despite the Respondent’s alleged willingness to settle the outstanding costs, the bill remains unpaid. Submissions 5. The application was canvassed through written submissions. In his submissions, the Applicant has stated that the taxed costs amount to Kshs 121,574.40 is not disputed; that the Respondent is yet to settle the taxed costs; that the Respondent has not paid Kshs 28,950 as alleged as he has not demonstrated that the annexed cheque was received by the Applicant and urged the court to find that there was no such payment made. 6. On whether the Applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed costs, the Applicant has submitted that Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order provides that an advocate is entitled to charge interest at 14% from the expiry of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client. He argued that the Bill of Costs was served on the Respondent on 19th March 2025 and that interest started accruing 30 days after service. The Applicant relied on Kithi & Company Advocates v Menengai Downs Limited [2015] KEHC 6334 (KLR) and Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v Vinayak Builders Limited (Commercial Misce. Application E599 of 2022) to support his submission that he is entitled to charge interest at 14%. 7. The Applicant submitted that he is entitled to costs of this application. 8. The Respondent 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. He cited Ngaywa & Kibet Co. Adv. V Monarch Insurance Co Ltd [2025] KEHC 10669 (KLR). Determination 9. My reading and understanding of the Application and the Replying Affidavit in opposition is that the amount taxed is not in dispute save for the claim by the Respondent that he had paid Kshs 28,950 to the Applicant which amount has not been accounted for during taxation of the bill. I have considered this https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/16525/eng@2025-10-22 2

page 2 of 3

issue. The alleged payment has been contested for the reason that there is not official acknowledgment of the payment as is normally the case for official communication. The Respondent did not contest that he was represented by an advocate during taxation of the bill. He therefore had the chance of contesting the issue during taxation. 10. I am not persuaded that the Respondent made the payment as claimed. 11. On the issue of interest, I have read Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. It provides that: An advocate may charge interest at 14% 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, providing such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full. 12. I have seen the communication to Makhecha & Gitonga Advocates, letter dated 16th May 2025, forwarding the Certificate of Taxation with a request that the same be communicated to the Respondent to settle the amount within 7 days. I have not seen a demand notice for the interest at 14% as claimed. Consequently, I agree with the Respondent that the Applicant did not formally demanded payment with a notice that interest would accrue at 14% if not settled within 30 days. 13. In conclusion, the application dated 12th June 2025 partially succeeds. I hereby grant the orders as follows: 14. a. Judgment is hereby entered for the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 121,574.40 as appears on the Certificate of Taxation dated 15th May 2025. b. The Applicant is at liberty to execute the judgment should the Respondent fail to settle the amount taxed. c. Costs of this application are payable to the Applicant. d. I decline to award interest at 14% per annum as prayed for reasons explained in this Ruling. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 22ND 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/2025/16525/eng@2025-10-22 3

page 3 of 3