Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates v County Government of Migori (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4381 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan law firm won judgment for Kshs. 545,777 in taxed fees from Migori County, but lost backdated interest and must use special procedures to recover from a county government.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether this Honourable Court should enter judgment in favor of the Applicant
- 2.whether the court should award costs and interest
- 3.whether the prayer for leave to execute the judgment against the Respondent was ripe for grant
Key legal issues
#Whether judgment should be entered on the Certificate of Taxation
Judgment was entered for the Applicant for the taxed sum of Kshs. 545,777.00, the Respondent having indicated no objection to entry of judgment on the taxed amount
The court noted that during preparations for hearing the Respondent stated it had no problem with judgment being entered for the sum taxed, so the parties did not submit on prayer 1. The Certificate of Taxation dated 31st July 2025 had not been set aside or altered, and under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act the court entered judgment for the certified sum.
Whether interest at 14% per annum should run from 6th June 2025
The retrospective interest claim failed because it was not included in the Bill of Costs and the taxed Certificate is final; however, interest at court rates was awarded from the date of judgment in the interest of justice
Parties are bound by their pleadings, and the Applicant's pleaded claim was for interest from a period before the Certificate issued. Following the Court of Appeal in Titus Makhanu, where the taxing master awarded no interest the certified sum is final and the advocate must pursue a reference under Rule 11. Yet a certificate converted into a decree attracts post-decree interest under Section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, so the court awarded interest at court rates from judgment.
Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to execute the judgment against the Respondent
The prayer was declined as premature and contrary to statutory execution procedures against county governments
The court held that execution against the national and county governments is governed by procedures laid down by statute and rules. Granting leave to execute would be contrary to those procedures and hence illegal. The Applicant was directed to follow those procedures to realize the sum awarded.
Legal principles established
#- Once a bill of costs is taxed and a Certificate of Costs issued, the certified sum is final and the advocate cannot charge interest retrospectively on it; interest may only run on the certified sum post-judgment
- Section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is reconciled with Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act: after the Certificate of Costs is converted into a decree, further interest runs only from the date of the judgment or decree
- Execution against national and county governments must follow the procedures laid down by statute and rules
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs. 545,777.00/= as per the Certificate of Taxation dated 31st July 2025
- 2.Interest awarded at court rates on the taxed sum from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 3.Prayer for leave to execute the judgment against the Respondent declined; the Applicant at liberty to follow statutory procedures for execution against county governments
- 4.Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant, to be borne by the Respondent
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 and Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Relief refused
#Prayer for interest from 6th June 2025 (one month after service of the Bill of Costs) as claimed under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Interest was not included in the Bill of Costs and once taxed the Certificate is final; interest cannot run retrospectively, only from the date of judgment
Prayer that the Applicant be allowed to execute the judgment against the Respondent
Execution against county governments is governed by laid-down statutory procedures and granting the prayer would be contrary to those procedures
Costs
The Respondent shall bear the costs of the application since it succeeded basically.
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 upshot is that the application herein succeeds in this court enters judgment for the applicant against the respondent in the sum of Kenya Shillings 545,777.00 with interest at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full. On costs, since the application has succeeded basically, the Respondent shall bear them.
Once a bill of costs is taxed the Advocate cannot charge interest retrospectively on the bill of costs which has been taxed and is final.
Once he/she does that, the court will now apply the provisions of Section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act regarding interest, only to the extent that the interest can only run post the date of judgment or decree.
For this court to grant such a prayer it would be contrary to those procedures of the law hence illegal. The prayer this fails.
Parties are bound by their pleadings and that evidence which tends to be at variance with the pleadings is for rejection. Pleadings are the bedrock upon which all the proceedings derive from.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the Respondent's Grounds of Opposition and submissions are repeatedly dated 27th February 2026, which post-dates the application of 7th August 2025 but the ruling is dated 30th June 2026; the Grounds of Opposition date also precedes the ruling date only by months, but the submissions date appears anomalously placed within the narrative.
The judgment inconsistently identifies the Respondent (a county government whose legal framework under the Public Finance Management Act was invoked) yet the taxation certificate documents bear the party names; the coram does not state the court or station expressly.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates v County Government of Migori (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4381 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 7th August 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4381/eng@2026-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.