REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MAKUENI CIVIL MISC.APPLICATION NO. E040 OF 2025 JULIUS ORENGE T/A ORENGE J AND ASSOCIATES ……………….... APPLICANT VERSUS DIRECT LINE INSURANCE …………………………………………....RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. Vide a Notice of Motion dated 12 th February 2026 and filed on 13th February 2026, pursuant to Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 5 of the Advocates Act, the applicant sought for orders; a) That Judgment be entered in favour of the Advocate, Julius Orenge Advocate, T/A Orenge J and Associates against the client /respondent, Direct Line Assurance Company in the sum of Kshs. 284,123.84 together with interest thereon at court rates from 8-10-2025 in terms of the Certificate Of Taxation signed by Hon,F.C. Ngetich on 30-10-2025. b) That a decree does issue for the said sum of Kshs. 284,123.84 upon entry of judgment. c) That costs of this taxation proceedings and application against the respondent be assessed at Kshs. 50,000/=. 2. The application is anchored on the particulars set out on its face and averments contained in the affidavit in support in which it was averred that on the instruction of the respondent, the applicant acted for the respondent in HCCA No.64 of 2022. That H.C.C.MISC. APPL. E040/25 Julius Orenge vs Direct Line Assurance Company Ltd. Page 1 of 5
page 1 of 5
upon conclusion of the proceedings, the respondent declined and or refused to pay the necessary legal fees. As a consequence, the applicant lodged an Advocates’ Client Bill of Costs which was taxed at Kshs. 284,123.84 on 8-10-2025. A Certificate of Taxation was subsequently issued on 30-10-2025. 3. Having failed to honour the said payment, the applicant moved to this court for entry of judgment against the respondent to facilitate execution process. 4. I have considered the application herein which is not opposed. The only issue for determination is whether the orders sought can issue. 5. It is trite that once a Taxing Master has taxed the Bill of Costs, issued a Certificate of Costs and there is no reference filed against his ruling, no other action would be required from the court save to enter judgment. The Certificate of Costs is final as to the amount of the costs and the court would be quite in order to enter judgment in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent. [See HC Misc 486 of 2012 E.W. Njeru & Co Advocates vs Zakhem Construction (K) Limited (2013) KECH3376(KLR). 6. This position is based on the provisions of Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act Cap 16 (Laws of Kenya) and Section 48 (3) of the Advocates Act which provides as follows: - H.C.C.MISC. APPL. E040/25 Julius Orenge vs Direct Line Assurance Company Ltd. Page 2 of 5
page 2 of 5
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, advocate a bill and a of costs client between may be an taxed notwithstanding that no suit for recovery of costs had been filed.” 7. Similarly, in Lubulellah &Associates Advocates v N K Limited brothers (2014)e KLR the Court held that; once a Taxing Master has taxed the Bill of Costs and issued a Certificate of Costs and there is no reference against its ruling, no other action would be expected from the court save to enter judgment. 8. In the instant case, the Respondent has not challenged the application. In any event, no reference against the Certificate of Costs has been filed. In the absence of a reference or an order setting aside the taxation order, this court can not interfere with the Taxation Certificate issued directing payment of the amount due. 9. Noting that the Respondent did not file a reference, the Applicant thus ought to enjoy the fruits of its labour. 10. Further, the Applicant sought interest as plainly provided for under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act which empowers this court to make any order that it deems fit. Entry of judgment and award of interest at court rates is within the ambit of what this court can do. The Applicant has claimed for interest on the H.C.C.MISC. APPL. E040/25 Julius Orenge vs Direct Line Assurance Company Ltd. Page 3 of 5
page 3 of 5
taxed amount which is Kshs.109, 050/=-. Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides as follows: “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, provided that such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill shall have been paid or tendered in full.” 11. Additionally, in the case of HC Misc No 486 and 487 of 2012 E.W. Njeru & Co Advocates (Supra), it can be easily gleaned that if an advocate files his Bill of Costs without raising the issue of interest, then he forfeits interest as provided for under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The court can only award the interest at court rates. In this case, the same was properly raised and therefore awarded. 12. Accordingly, I am inclined to find that the application herein is merited and the same is hereby allowed as prayed with costs. Dated, signed and delivered virtually this 18th day of May 2026. …………………….… J. N. ONYIEGO JUDGE H.C.C.MISC. APPL. E040/25 Julius Orenge vs Direct Line Assurance Company Ltd. Page 4 of 5
page 4 of 5
H.C.C.MISC. APPL. E040/25 Julius Orenge vs Direct Line Assurance Company Ltd. Page 5 of 5
page 5 of 5