REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MAKUENI CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. E020 OF 2025 COOTOW & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES…………….... ……………… APPLICANT VERSUS OCEAN LINE LIMITED …………………………………………...........RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. Vide a Notice of Motion dated 20th February 2026, filed pursuant to Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 5 of the Advocates Act, the applicant sought for orders; a) That this Honourable Court be pleased to convert the Advocate and Client Certificate of Taxation dated 12 th November 2025 into a court degree against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 85,048/=. b) That costs of this application be provided for. 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 Civil Suit No.113 of 2010 before the Principle Magistrate’s Court at Makindu. That 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. 85,048 on 7-12-2025. H.C.C.MISC. APPL. E020/25 A Certificate of Taxation Cootow & Ass. Adv. Vs Ocean Line Ltd. Page 1 of 4
page 1 of 4
was subsequently issued on 10-11-2025. That no reference has been filed challenging the ruling for taxation. 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: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, advocate H.C.C.MISC. APPL. E020/25 a bill and a of costs client between may be Cootow & Ass. Adv. Vs Ocean Line Ltd. an taxed Page 2 of 4
page 2 of 4
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 as there is nothing to stop execution. 10. I have noted that the applicant did not seek interest hence the same is not awarded. See the case of HC Misc No 486 and 487 of 2012 E.W. Njeru & Co Advocates (Supra), where it was stated 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 not raised hence it cannot be awarded. H.C.C.MISC. APPL. E020/25 Cootow & Ass. Adv. Vs Ocean Line Ltd. Page 3 of 4
page 3 of 4
11. 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 29th day of May 2026. …………………….… J. N. ONYIEGO JUDGE H.C.C.MISC. APPL. E020/25 Cootow & Ass. Adv. Vs Ocean Line Ltd. Page 4 of 4
page 4 of 4