Bruce Odeny & Co. Advocates v Alila & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 401 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Siaya court converted an advocate's taxed fee certificate of Kshs. 160,259.80 into an enforceable judgment because the client never challenged it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the application for conversion of the certificate of costs issued on 24/06/2025 into a decree and judgment of the court is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether judgment can be entered on the certificate of taxation under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act
Yes. The certificate of taxation dated 24/06/2025 has not been challenged, set aside or altered, and nothing before the court shows the amount is disputed or that the retainer is in issue; judgment may therefore be entered for the certified sum.
Section 51(2) provides that the taxing officer's certificate is final as to the amount covered unless set aside or altered by the court, and empowers entry of judgment where the retainer is not disputed. The respondent was served, appeared, and was given an opportunity to respond in writing but did not. The taxing master's ruling of 20/06/2025 and the certificate of taxation are on record and unchallenged. Following Republic v City Council of Nairobi (Exparte Inderpal Singh), the court found no impediment to entering judgment on the taxed costs.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of taxation is final as to the amount covered thereby unless set aside or altered by the court, and where the retainer is not disputed the court may enter judgment for the sum certified (s.51(2) Advocates Act).
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 16th July 2025 is allowed as prayed, with the certificate of costs taxed at Kshs. 160,259.80/= converted into a decree and judgment of the court
- 2.No orders as to costs on the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act (Cap 16)
Relief refused
#Costs of the application
The court allowed the application as prayed but declined to award costs on the application
Costs
No orders as to costs on the application
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.
I accordingly allow the Notice of Motion application dated 16th July 2025 as prayed save that there shall be no orders as to costs on the application.
It is an established position of law that the only reason that a court of law cannot enter judgment on a Certificate of Costs is if the same has been set aside or altered, or where there is an issue with retainer.
The power donated to the court is to declare the certificate of the taxing master as final as to the amount therein and that judgement be entered accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the names of the parties or the file number of the application itself; only the underlying suit (Siaya CM ELC No. E25 of 2022) is identified.
Paragraph 7 contains an apparent drafting error: it states the applicant filed submissions and then contradicts itself that the applicant did not file submissions (the respondent had also failed to respond).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bruce Odeny & Co. Advocates v Alila & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 401 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 16/07/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/401/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.