Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Kiruki & Kayika Advocates v Monarch Insurance Co. Ltd

Kiruki & Kayika Advocates v Monarch Insurance Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E973 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 8820 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8820 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E973 OF 2023 SIFUNA NIXON, J MAY 28, 2026 BETWEEN KIRUKI & KAYIKA ADVOCATES ........................................................ ADVOCATE AND MONARCH INSURANCE CO. LTD ............................................................. CLIENT RULING 1. This ruling is on the Application dated 30th September 2024. The same is made by the Applicant Kiruki & Kayika Advocates, a law firm that taxed their Advocate-Client Bills in various miscellaneous files. The Bills were taxed, and Certificates of Taxation issued in respect of each bill. 2. Later, the Applicant filed various Miscellaneous Applications against the Client. The Applications are for judgment in terms of the respective Certificates of Taxation, that were filed under Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act (Cap 16 of Kenya). 3. By this Application, the Applicant has sought judgment for Ksh 1,635,932=, being a consolidated sum total of several Certificates of Taxation, and several different Advocate-Client Bills of Costs. Analysis and Determination 4. I hold that the logic of consolidation that applies to consolidation of suits arising from the same transaction, does not apply in this case. 5. For its Advocate-Clients costs, the Applicant filed various different Bills of Costs in respect of each suit and/or instructions. They were different, and the instructions were on diverse dates. Similarly, the Bills were different and each taxed separately, with each now having its own Certificate of Taxation. They were taxed in different files. 6. I hold that judgments should be sought separately for each Certificate of Taxation. Just like at taxation, the Applicant files and taxes each Bill separately. As each representation is a different transaction. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8820/eng@2026-05-28 1

page 1 of 2

7. For the aforegoing reasons, this Application is misconceived, hence is hereby dismissed. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIRTUALLY ON THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2026. PROF (DR) NIXON SIFUNA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8820/eng@2026-05-28 2

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.