Titus Makhanu & Associates Advocates v Alicate Holdings Limited (Civil Appeal E671 of 2023) [2025] KECA 1834 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that lawyers cannot add a 14% interest claim after their bill of costs has been taxed; the claim must be included upfront.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an advocate can charge the potentially allowable interest of 14% p.a. under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order on a taxed Bill of Costs when the advocate did not include the interest in the original Bill of Costs served on the client and taxed by a Taxing Master
Key legal issues
#Whether a claim for 14% p.a. interest under Rule 7 may be made for the first time in section 51(2) adoption proceedings
No; the claim for interest must be made in the Bill of Costs and litigated before the Taxing Master, with any omission challengeable only by a Rule 11 reference.
The court read Rule 7 together with section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and its precedents. A Bill of Costs must contain the totality of the advocate's claims so the client knows what to contest. After taxation the door is closed on further claims based on the representation; only a Rule 11 reference can challenge the taxed amount. Allowing piecemeal claims would reward advocates who delay bills to inflate interest. The appellant neither claimed interest in the bill nor filed a Rule 11 reference, so the judge properly declined interest.
Whether the High Court misdirected itself in declining the discretionary award of interest
The learned Judge did not misapprehend the law or abuse her discretion in disallowing the interest claim.
Since the appellant was procedurally barred from raising the Rule 7 interest claim at the enforcement stage, the High Court's refusal to award interest was correct in law. An appellate court will not interfere with a discretion exercised judiciously, and the trial judge's decision rested on the res judicata analysis of a claim never pleaded in the reference or the Bill of Costs.
Legal principles established
#- An advocate who wishes to charge interest at 14% p.a. under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order must include that claim in the Bill of Costs served on the client and litigate it before the Taxing Master; the claim cannot be raised for the first time in section 51(2) enforcement/adoption proceedings.
- Once a Bill of Costs is taxed and a Certificate of Costs issued, the certificate represents the totality of the client's indebtedness save for interest at court rates at the discretion of the adopting court, and any challenge to the taxed amount lies only by a Rule 11 reference.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Nairobi High Court Miscellaneous (Reference) Civil Application No E145 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (Advocates Act enforcement proceedings; not stated by provision in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Interest at 14% p.a. on the taxed amount of Kshs 26,449,774.64 from the date of filing and/or one month after service of the Bill of Costs until payment in full
The advocate did not include the claim for interest in the Bill of Costs nor file a reference under Rule 11 challenging its omission, so it could not be raised for the first time in section 51(2) adoption proceedings
Costs
The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The upshot is that the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
It is not open to the advocate to spring the claim of interest for the first time at the enforcement proceedings under section 51 of the Advocates Act.
Once a Bill of Costs is taxed by a taxing master and a ruling arrived at, the door is closed on the advocate to add any further claims against the client based on their representation of the client in the underlying matter from the date the Bill of Costs was served on the client.
There is a policy preference against an advocate making piecemeal claims against the client.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states the Bill of Costs was taxed in the sum of Kshs 414,416.77, an implausibly small figure given a Kshs 40,100,701.20 claim, possibly a typographical error not otherwise explained
Respondent's submissions date the Bill of Costs as 22nd February 2012, inconsistent with the rest of the record showing 22nd February 2021
Policy rationale paragraph mistakenly refers to the Bill of Costs as the 'Bill of Rights'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates v County Government of Migori (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4381 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4381 (KLR)30 Jun 2026followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Titus Makhanu & Associates Advocates v Alicate Holdings Limited (Civil Appeal E671 of 2023) [2025] KECA 1834 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi Civil Appeal (Miscellaneous) No E145 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1834/eng@2025-11-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.