Ewins v Abdalla (Environment and Land Case 109 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 3320 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court converted a lawyer's Certificate of Taxation into an enforceable decree because the client gave no valid reason for failing to pay the taxed costs.
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 entry of judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act is automatic or discretionary
- 2.Whether the applicant has satisfied the legal and evidentiary threshold for the court to exercise its discretion in her favour
- 3.Whether the application is premature, oppressive and an abuse of the court process
Key legal issues
#Whether entry of judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act is automatic or discretionary
Entry of judgment under Section 51(2) is not automatic; it involves judicial discretion. However, where the respondent discloses no relevant facts or reasons for non-settlement of the taxed costs, the court has no material on which to exercise discretion in her favour and the application succeeds.
The court agreed with the respondent that adoption of a Certificate of Taxation under Section 51(2) is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, not mechanically. But discretion cannot be exercised in a factual vacuum: a party resisting adoption must place before the court relevant facts, such as reasons for non-payment, whether pecuniary hardship or otherwise. The defendant did not dispute the validity of the Certificate of Taxation, did not dispute service of the Notice to Show Cause, and offered no explanation for the delay in payment, leaving the court with nothing to weigh in her favour.
Whether the respondent demonstrated grounds warranting refusal to adopt the Certificate of Taxation
The respondent did not dispute the validity of the Certificate of Taxation and gave no evidence of circumstances justifying non-settlement; the evidentiary threshold for resisting adoption was not met.
The respondent expressly did not dispute the validity of the Certificate of Taxation. The record showed a Notice to Show Cause under Order 22 Rule 18 CPR issued on 11th October 2024 and served on the respondent on 30th April 2025, service confirmed by a process server's affidavit which the defendant did not rebut. The defendant neither disputed service nor explained her failure to pay, for example by citing pecuniary handicaps. Disclosure of reasons for non-settlement would have afforded the court room to exercise discretion, but none were disclosed.
Legal principles established
#- Even where a statute provides for discretion, there must be relevant facts and material upon which the court exercises that discretion; absent any disclosed reason for non-settlement of taxed costs, judgment under Section 51(2) will be entered.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 7th August 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer number 1 thereof, being conversion of the Certificate of Taxation dated 29th July 2024 into a decree and judgment
- 2.Each party shall bear their own costs of 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, read with Order 22 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules
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.
Discretion without relevant facts in judicial matters is like a fish asked to climb a tree. It is puzzled as to how. It works best among facts and advanced reasons.
as much as I agree that entry of judgment under Section 51(2) is not automatic, this court lacks material upon which to exercise its discretion in the defendant’s favour and the application dated 7/8/2025 should therefore succeed.
the application dated 7th August 2025 has merit and the same is allowed in terms of prayer number 1 thereof. Each party shall bear their own costs of the application.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number or the names of the parties; parties are referred to only as 'applicant' and 'defendant/respondent'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ewins v Abdalla (Environment and Land Case 109 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 3320 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3320/eng@2026-04-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.