Julius Nyakiangana & Co Advocates v Cherotich Evalyne

on 22nd April, 2024. It was taxed and allowed in the sum of Kshs. 69,900/=, leading to the issuance of a Certificate of Taxation on 3rd July, 2024. 4. The Applicant averred that the Certificate of Taxation was duly served upon the Respondent, who, despite service and repeated demands for payment, had failed, refused, and/or neglected to settle the taxed costs. That she remains indebted to the Applicant in the sum of Kshs. 69,900/=. 5. There was no response filed despite service to the Respondent as evidenced by the numerous Affidavits of Service filed by the Applicant. Issues for determination 6. The Court has considered the Application and the written submissions. The issues for determination are; a. Whether the Court ought to enter judgment in the sum in the Certificate of Costs for the sum of Kshs.69,600 b. Whether the Applicant is entitled to interest. Analysis 7. The Court notes that the application is not opposed. a. 8. Whether the Court ought to enter judgment in the sum in the Certificate of Costs for the sum of Kshs.69,600 The applicable law is found at Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act which reads as follows; “ 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.” 9. The above-mentioned provision was reiterated in the case of Musyoka & Wambua Advocates versus Rustam Hira Advocate (2006) eKLR where it was held: “ Section 51 of the Act makes general provisions as to taxation, as the marginal note indicates. One of those provisions is that the court has discretion to enter judgment on a Certificate of Taxation which has not been set aside or altered, where there is no dispute as to retainer. This in my view is a mode of recovery of taxed costs provided by law, in addition to filing of suit......” 10. In the instant case, no reference has been filed challenging the certificate of taxation which is sought to be adopted as judgment on costs. No issue has been raised as to the retainer. This Court is therefore satisfied that the Certificate of Taxation dated 3rd July, 2024 is uncontested. 11. Going by the above-mentioned provision of Section 51(2) of the Advocate’s Act the Court enters judgment in the sum in the Certificate of Costs dated 3rd July, 2024 for the sum of Kshs.69, 600/-. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8158/eng@2026-06-11 2

page 2 of 4

b. Whether the Applicant is entitled to interest. 12. On the issue of interest, Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, states: 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. 13. The Court in Jackson Omwenga & Co. Advocates vs. Everest Enterprises Ltd [2017] stated; “ I have perused the Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order, Rule 7. Under the said rule, an advocate can only charge interest from the expiration of one month from the delivery of the bill to the client, providing such claim for interest is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full. To comply with that provision, the applicant must prove two things: (a) That one month has expired from the time he delivered his bill to the client; (b) He has raised his ‘claim’ for interest before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full.” 14. From a perusal of the record, there is no evidence that the Applicant ever served the Respondent with any document making a claim for interest. Therefore, in line with Rule 7, the Applicant is found to have failed to furnish proof that it had raised the claim for interest with the Respondent. The claim may be raised in the Bill of costs or any other document. The claim for interest is declined. 15. The Application is hereby partially allowed. 16. As to costs the same ordinarily follow the event and lie at the discretion of this Court. The fair order is that let the Applicant have the costs of the Application. Determination 17. The Advocate/Applicant’s application by way of a Notice of Motion dated 11th July, 2024 is allowed in the following terms; a. Judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs.69,600/= being the taxed and certified cost due to the Applicant. b. The costs of the application be borne by the Respondent. 18. It is so ordered. 19. This file is hereby marked as closed. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MILIMANI THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. NJOROGE BENJAMIN K. JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Nyakiangana for the Advocate/Applicant. N/A for the Client/Respondent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8158/eng@2026-06-11 3

page 3 of 4

Mr. John Paul - Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8158/eng@2026-06-11 4

page 4 of 4