Amondi & Company Advocates v Oyieko (Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6200 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan High Court refused to enter judgment for an advocate because the Certificate of Costs didn't match the Taxing Master's ruling.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether judgment should be entered in terms of the Certificate of Costs in favour of the advocate/applicant
- 2.Whether the discrepancy between the amount in the Certificate of Costs and the amount in the Taxing Master's ruling of 9th November 2023 could be explained
Key legal issues
#Whether judgment may be entered in terms of a Certificate of Costs that does not tally with the Taxing Master's ruling
No - judgment could not be entered until the Certificate of Costs was redrawn to conform to the ruling of 9th November 2023
The Certificate of Costs reflected Kshs.971,944.27 while the Taxing Master's ruling dated 9th November 2023 awarded Kshs.342,720.60. No material was placed before the court to explain this discrepancy. Since judgment in an advocate's fee claim is entered in terms of a certificate that accurately reflects taxation, the court remitted the file to the Taxing Master to draw a proper certificate before judgment could be entered.
Legal principles established
#- A Certificate of Costs must correspond with the Taxing Master's ruling before judgment can be entered in terms of it
Court orders
#- 1.The file is returned to the Taxing Master to draw a Certificate of Costs in accordance with the ruling dated 9th November 2023 to enable entry of judgement
- 2.Thereafter the file may be returned to the court for entry of judgement in terms of the Certificate of Costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Advocate's remedy to enter judgment in terms of a Certificate of Costs following taxation
Relief refused
#Judgment entered in terms of the Certificate of Costs as prayed
The amount in the Certificate of Costs (Kshs.971,944.27) did not match the amount awarded in the Taxing Master's ruling (Kshs.342,720.60) and no material explained the discrepancy
Costs
No costs order made; the application sought costs of the application but the court made no costs order.
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.
For the foregoing reason the file is hereby returned to the Taxing Master to draw Certificate of Costs in accordance with the ruling dated 9th November 2023 to enable entry of judgement.
Thereafter the file may be returned to this court for entry of judgement in terms of the Certificate of Costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The case title, party names and case number are not stated on the face of the judgment; the judgment refers only to an unnamed applicant and respondents and to the application by date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amondi & Company Advocates v Oyieko (Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6200 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 15th May, 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6200/eng@2025-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.