Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated (related to ELC Misc. Appl. Nos. 95 and 96 of 2019)· [2026] KEELC 31 (KLR)

Andrew and Steve Advocates v Paragon Electronics Limited (Environment and Land Civil Miscellaneous Application 94 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 31 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 January 2026
MCMbogo C.G.
1,340 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to enforce an advocate's taxed legal fees because a later settlement agreement had already resolved the dispute.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The advocate/applicant moved the court by notice of motion dated 20th February, 2025 under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act seeking entry of judgment against the client/respondent for Kshs.770,233.80 as per a certificate of taxation dated 25th November, 2020, with interest at 14% per annum from the date of taxation and leave to execute. The certificate followed a taxing officer's ruling of 29th October, 2020. The client's reference against the taxation was settled by a consent dated 19th April, 2021. The client opposed the application, arguing the consent, adopted as a court order, settled the matter; that the court had already pronounced itself on the consent in a ruling of 9th February, 2022 and was thus functus officio; and that litigation must come to an end. The applicant countered that the consent did not waive the taxed costs, did not vary or set aside the certificate, and that a consent settling a pending reference is not a waiver. The court considered the underlying undated deed of settlement executed in 2021, under which the parties agreed to cease active litigation, clause 3(i) providing for a consent marking the Schedule 2 matters - including this matter and ELC Misc. Appl. Nos. 95 and 96 of 2019 - as fully settled with no orders as to costs. Noting the deed was executed after the certificate of costs issued, and mindful of pending litigation before the magistrates' court concerning the deed, the court held the consent spoke to the deed's intent and that granting judgment would invalidate the consent and deed of settlement. The application was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs, the orders extending to the two related matters.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether judgment should be entered on the certificate of taxation dated 25th November, 2020 notwithstanding the consent dated 19th April, 2021

Holding

The court declined to enter judgment. The consent, adopted as an order of the court, gave effect to a deed of settlement executed after the certificate of costs was issued, ceasing litigation on the matters in Schedule 2 (including this matter and ELC Misc. Appl. Nos. 95 and 96 of 2019). Entering judgment would invalidate the consent and the deed of settlement, which is the subject of pending litigation before the magistrates' court.

Reasoning

The deed of settlement executed in 2021 acknowledged active litigation between the parties and recorded an agreement to cease it, clause 3(i) providing for a consent marking Schedule 2 matters as fully settled with no orders as to costs. This matter was listed in Schedule 2. The deed was executed after the certificate of costs issued. The consent therefore reflected the deed's intent, and its validity is sub judice before the magistrates' court, making it inappropriate to grant judgment which would invalidate it.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A consent adopted as an order of the court, recording matters as fully settled with no orders as to costs, bars a subsequent application to enter judgment on a certificate of taxation relating to those matters
  • A court will decline to make orders that would have the effect of invalidating a consent whose validity is in issue before another court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 20th February, 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs
  3. 3.The orders to apply to ELC Misc. Appl No. 95 of 2019 and ELC Misc. Appl. No. 96 of 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Andrew and Steve Advocates v Paragon Electronics Limited (Environment and Land Civil Miscellaneous Application 94 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 31 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated (related to ELC Misc. Appl. Nos. 95 and 96 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/31/eng@2026-01-20

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