Kinyua & Maingi Advocates v Trident Insurance Company Limited

4. The letter of instruction dated 15th August 2022, the certificate of taxation dated 12th August 2025 and letter dated 13th August 2025 from the applicant to the respondent forwarding a copy of the certificate of taxation are annexed to the supporting affidavit. 5. The application is expressed to be filed under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act (Cap. 16) Laws of Kenya. 6. This court has been shown an affidavit of service sworn on 2nd September 2025 by Simon Mutinda James, a process server to the effect that this application was duly served upon the respondent. The same bears the respondent's stamp dated 28th August 2025. 7. There is no response to the application and therefore I find that the application is not opposed. 8. I have considered the application, the grounds in support and the supporting affidavit. The only issue for determination in this application is whether judgment should be entered against the respondent for the taxed costs due to the applicant. 9. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act provides as 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 judgment be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs." 10. The applicant has annexed to the supporting affidavit the certificate of costs that was issued by the Taxing Officer. It is apparent that the certificate of costs has not been set aside and/or altered and no reference under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order challenging the decision of the said Taxing Master has been made. The Court of Appeal in the case of Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority [2021] eKLR held that once a certificate of costs is issued and there is no reference against the decision of the taxing master, and the certificate of costs had not been set aside and/or altered, no other action was required save for entry of judgment by the court. The taxed bill of costs herein can therefore be entered as a judgment of this court. 11. On the issue of interest, the position in law is that the court has the discretion to determine when interest starts to run. For instance, in the case of Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates vs Kenya Ports Authority (Supra), it was held that under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, an advocate is entitled to claim interest but the time from when interest will run is not stipulated and is therefore left to the discretion of the court. 12. In the case of D. Njogu & Company Advocates v Kenya National Capital Corporation [2006] eKLR, the High Court held that interest ought to run from the date the correct fee note was sent to the client. The court held: “ the date from when interest should be calculable should be pegged to the date when the advocate sends the correct fee note. And by the "correct fee note" I mean the bill which is in accordance with the terms upon which the advocate had contracted with the client, or the bill which the client does not dispute, or the bill which is in accordance with the sums awarded by either the taxing officer or by the deputy registrar in a certificate of costs." 13. The certificate of costs was submitted to the client, the respondent as per the letter dated 13th August 2025. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19672/eng@2025-12-17 2

page 2 of 3

14. Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order provides for interest on costs as follows:- "An advocate may charge interest at 14 per cent 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, provided that such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill shall have been paid or tendered in full." 15. In the case of Makhecha and Company Advocates v Central Bank of Kenya [2020] eKLR the court held that Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order entitles an advocate to charge interest above the normal or applicable rate of twelve (12%) per cent provided that the claim for interest was raised before payment or settlement of the advocate's bill of costs. 16. In the case of Mercy Mwangi t/a Mwangi Kingera & Company Advocates vs Invesco Assurance Company Limited [2017] eKLR it was held that the discretion to be exercised by the court comes with the power to reduce the period in which the interest is payable or to extend or alter the rate at which interest is payable or to withhold the entire interest payable in the interests of justice. 17. It is clear from the depositions herein that the claim for interest herein was raised before settlement of the applicant's bill of costs. Determination 18. 19. From the foregoing analysis, I find that the applicant's notice of motion application dated 18th August 2025 has merit and is hereby allowed in the following terms: i. Judgment be and is hereby entered for of the applicant for KShs. 214,585/= (Kenya Shillings Two Hundred and Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty-Five Shillings) together with interest thereon at fourteen per cent (14%) per annum calculated from 13th August 2025. ii. Costs of this application are assessed at KShs 10,000/= and ae awarded to the applicant. Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KWALE ON THE VIRTUAL PLATFORM, TEAMS THIS 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025. ANDAYI W. F. JUDGE In the presence of: Amera (Ms) for the Applicant. N/A for the Respondent. Ummu: Court Assistant. Signed by/for: HON. JUSTICE ANDAYI W.F. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19672/eng@2025-12-17 3

page 3 of 3