The Republic of Kenya v Corporate Insurance Company Limited & 1 other

THEURI dated 7/04/2025 made in support of the application; therein he states that the Respondent instructed the firm of KINYANJUI NJUGUNA & COMPANY ADVOCATES to act for its client in LIMURU CMCC NO. 15 OF 2015 JOSEPH W. WANJOHI vs NAHASHON MWANGI & ANOTHER. 3. The Respondent failed to pay the legal fees thereby necessitating the filing of the Bill of Costs which was taxed and a Certificate of Taxation was issued which taxed costs the Respondent has failed and/or neglected to settle. 4. The instant application was uncontested as the Respondent failed and or neglected to file any response despite service having been effected. 5. The Applicant prayed that judgment be entered as prayed for the sum of Khs. 228,741/- together with interest thereon. The Applicant also prayed for costs of the application. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 6. Having considered the application and the supporting affidavit the issues framed for determination are; (i) Whether the application is merited for the court to adopt the Certificate of Taxation and enter judgment in the sum of Kshs. 228,741/- and; (ii) Whether interest is applicable thereon. ANALYSIS 7. Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act provides:“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 2|Page

page 2 of 6

amount of the costs recovered thereby; and the court may make such orders in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including where the retainer is not disputed an order that judgment be entered for the sum of certified to be due with costs.” 8. The wordings of the above section empower the court to enter judgment on the taxed amount if the same is uncontested. 9. In determining whether the court should adopt the amount on the Certificate of Taxation as the judgment of the court it should be satisfied that the certificate of taxation has not been set aside. 10. Reference is made to the case of Lubulellah & Associates Advocates Vs N. K. Brothers Limited (2014) eKLR where the court observed that:“The law is very clear that once a taxing master has taxed the costs, issued a Certificate of Costs and there is no reference against his ruling or there has been a ruling and a determination made and not set aside and/or altered, no other action would be required from the court save to enter judgment. An applicant is not required to file suit for the recovery of costs. The certificate of costs is final as to the amounts of the costs and the court would be quite in order to enter judgment in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent herein for the taxed sum indicated in the Certificate of Taxation that was issued on 25 th November 2012.” 3|Page

page 3 of 6

11. From perusal of the court record this court is satisfied that the Ruling is uncontested as the Respondent has not moved any court by way of filing a Reference against the ruling nor has the Ruling been set aside, altered, varied and / or reviewed, nor has any appeal been filed. 12. Therefore, no other action is required from this court save to enter judgment as prayed against the Respondent. Whether interest is applicable thereon and payable 13. The Applicant contends that it served a Demand Letter dated 16/11/2022 for settlement of the fees; the same was not settled necessitating the filing of this application which was duly served together with the Certificate of Taxation. The Applicant seeks the court to grant interest thereon at 14% per annum until payment in full. 14. Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides that: “An advocate may charge interests at 14% per annum on his disbursement and costs whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, such claim for interests is raised before the amount of the bill has been paid or tendered in full.” 15. The above rule stipulates that such claim for interest must be raised for it to start to accrue after the expiration of one month from the delivery of the bill to the client. 4|Page

page 4 of 6

16. In the case of KERONGO & COMPANY ADVOCATES VS AFRICA ASSURANCE MERCHANT CO. LIMITED [2019] eKLR the court held; ‘An advocate who does not provide proof that he had raised the issue of interest before the amount in the Bill of Costs has been paid or tendered in full will not be paid the interest chargeable under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. As the advocates herein had not demonstrated that they had raised the issue of interest as aforesaid, they could not therefore be awarded interest at fourteen (14%) per cent per annum.’ 17. The record reflects that on the 21/11/2022 the Respondent was served with a Final Fee Note and a Demand Letter dated 16/11/2022 which was accompanied with the Certificate of Taxation dated 17/06/2025; After careful perusal nowhere is there a claim for interest raised in the Final Fee Note or in the Demand Letter. 18. 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 prayer for interest to start accruing on the costs is found to be devoid of merit and is therefore disallowed. FINDINGS & DETERMINATION 19. For the forgoing reasons this court makes the following findings and determinations:(i) This court finds the application to be partially with merit and it is hereby partially allowed; (ii) The Certificate of Taxation dated 17/06/2025 in the sum of Kshs. is hereby adopted as a Judgment of this court. Judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the Advocates in the sum of Kshs. 228,741/-; 5|Page

page 5 of 6

(iii) The prayer for interest is found to be devoid of merit and it is hereby disallowed. (iv) Each party to bear own their costs of this application. Orders Accordingly. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA TEAMS AT VOI THIS 26 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025. HON. A. MSHILA JUDGE In the presence of; Sanja/Trizah – Court Assistants N/A for Applicant N/A – for Respondents 6|Page

page 6 of 6