Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of Motion dated 18/3/2025 (arising from ELC Land Case No 48 of 2021)

Amondi & Company Advocates v Ngode & 3 others (Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4243 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 May 2025
537 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

If you don't challenge a taxed advocate's fee bill, the court will convert it into a judgment you must pay, plus interest.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu (E. Asati, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 18th March 2025 by an advocate, Sylvia Nyambeki, seeking adoption of a certificate of costs as judgment and decree of the court, together with interest at 11% per annum from 17th July 2023, the date of filing the bill for taxation. The applicant had been retained by the Respondent in ELC Land Case No 48 of 2021; the bill was taxed at Kshs.284,144.78 and a certificate of taxation issued on 27th February 2024, which had not been set aside or altered. The Respondent opposed, asserting through a Replying Affidavit of Eric Ngode that payments made to the applicant should be set off against the taxed costs and that the applicant did not handle the case to the end, attaching receipts. The court held the retainer was not challenged and the only dispute was the alleged pre-taxation payments. Since that issue had been raised before the taxing master, the Respondent had not challenged the taxation, and no evidence showed the Taxing Master failed to account for the payments, the court allowed the application, awarded costs of the application to the applicant, and ordered the certificate of costs adopted as judgment and decree with interest as sought. Ruling dated and delivered at Kisumu on 30th May 2025 virtually.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the certificate of costs of Kshs.284,144.78 should be adopted as judgment and decree of the court with interest
  2. 2.Whether the monies the Respondent claims to have paid to the applicant should be set off against the taxed costs
  3. 3.Whether the applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed costs from the date of filing the bill of costs

Key legal issues

#
01

Set-off of pre-taxation payments against a taxed certificate of costs

Holding

The claim for set-off fails where the taxation was never challenged and there is no evidence that the Taxing Master failed to take the payments into account.

Reasoning

The retainer was not challenged and the bill had been taxed, with a certificate of taxation issued on 27th February 2024 that had not been set aside or altered. The only contest was over monies allegedly paid before taxation. The court noted the set-off issue was raised before the taxing master, that the Respondent did not challenge the taxation, and that no evidence showed the Taxing Master ignored the payments, so the application for adoption with interest succeeded.

p. 2
02

Entitlement to interest on taxed costs under Rule 7 of the Advocates' Remuneration Order

Holding

The applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed costs from the date of filing the bill of costs pursuant to Rule 7 of the Advocates' Remuneration Order.

Reasoning

The applicant sought adoption of the certificate of costs with interest at 11% per annum from 17th July 2023, the date of filing the bill for taxation, relying on Rule 7 of the Advocates' Remuneration Order. The court, finding the application merited and unopposed by any challenge to the taxation, allowed the application as prayed and adopted the certificate as judgment and decree with interest.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party dissatisfied with a taxation must challenge it; where the taxation is not challenged and no evidence shows the taxing master failed to account for payments made, the certificate of taxation stands and may be adopted as judgment.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 18/3/2025 is allowed
  2. 2.Certificate of costs of Kshs.284,144.78 adopted as judgment and decree of the court
  3. 3.Costs of the application to the applicant

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Advocates' Remuneration Order, Rule 7

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 Respondent has however not challenged the taxation. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that no evidence has been placed before court that the Taxing Master failed to take the said monies into account, the court finds that the application has merit and hereby allows it.
p. 2Failure to challenge taxation and absence of evidence of set-off
Costs of the application to the applicant. Orders accordingly.
p. 2Final orders and costs
There is no dispute that the applicant’s bill has been taxed and certificate of taxation prepared by the taxing master. The only point of contestation is monies which the Respondent claims to have paid to the applicant before the taxation.
p. 2Identification of the sole issue for determination

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment does not expressly restate the interest rate (11% per annum) or the interest period in the final orders; the orders simply allow the application as prayed.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Amondi & Company Advocates v Ngode & 3 others (Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4243 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 18/3/2025 (arising from ELC Land Case No 48 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4243/eng@2025-05-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.