Chaudhri & Associates v Registered Trustees of Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al – Nahyan (Miscellaneous Civil Application E202 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4812 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered a client to pay over KSh 22 million in legal fees because it never filed the required Notice of Objection challenging 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 there is a competent Reference before this Court
- 2.Whether the taxing master erred in principle in taxing items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 37, 39, 40, 44, 61, 62 and 63 of the impugned Bill of Costs
- 3.Whether judgment should be entered in favour of the Advocate pursuant to Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act as prayed
Key legal issues
#Competency of the Client's Reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
The Reference was incompetent because no Notice of Objection to taxation was filed at all.
Rule 11 obliges an aggrieved party to file a notice of objection within 14 days specifying the items objected to; the notice must not be omnibus. The court perused the record and found no notice, not even a defective one, was ever filed. Relying on Machira & Chadha, the court held the application fails on this ground alone.
Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle
No error of principle warranting interference was established.
Although the Taxing Master erred in finding the Bill unchallenged when the Client had filed submissions, the Client showed no prejudice. VAT is a statutory charge on legal fees; the 50% increment is the prescribed mechanism for Advocate-Client costs under Schedule VI; and costs of taxation follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. Further, the items submitted on were unknown to the Court.
Entry of judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act
Judgment was entered for the Advocate in terms of the unaltered Certificate of Costs.
Section 51(2) makes the certificate final as to quantum unless set aside or altered. The Client's reference having been dismissed, and relying on Lubulellah and the Supreme Court's Kenya Airports Authority decision, the court entered judgment for the certified sum, with interest under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act at 14% per annum from one month after issuance of the certificate.
Interest on the certified sum
Interest awarded at 14% per annum from 24/3/2026 under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act rather than Rule 7 of the Remuneration Order.
Following Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority, where interest is included as a charge in the Bill of Costs, Rule 7 does not apply and the court falls back on its discretion under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Advocate had included a claim for interest in the Bill, so the court awarded 14% per annum from one month after the Certificate of Costs was issued.
Legal principles established
#- Filing of a Notice of Objection to taxation within 14 days, specifying the items objected to, is mandatory and its absence renders a Reference incompetent.
- A court cannot interfere with a Taxing Master's decision absent an error of principle or a manifestly excessive fee.
- Once a Certificate of Costs is issued and is not set aside or altered, the only remaining step is entry of judgment under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act; no fresh suit is required.
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 9/2/2026 filed in ELC Misc. E202, E203 and E204 of 2022 is dismissed with costs to the Advocates
- 2.The Notices of Motion dated 29/5/2026 in ELC Misc. E202, E203 and E204 of 2022 are allowed and judgment is entered for the Advocates against the Client
- 3.In Miscellaneous ELC E203 of 2022 judgment entered for the Advocates against the Client for Kshs. 21,027,030.00 with interest at 14% per annum from 24/3/2026 till payment in full
- 4.In Miscellaneous ELC E203 of 2022 (as printed) judgment entered for the Advocates against the Client for Kshs. 21,415,441.50 with interest at 14% per annum from 24/3/2026 till payment in full
- 5.In Miscellaneous ELC E204 of 2022 judgment entered for the Advocates against the Client for Kshs. 22,452,846.32 with interest at 14% per annum from 24/3/2026 till payment in full
- 6.The Advocates are awarded costs for both applications
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act
- Consolidated with
- ELC Misc. E203 of 2022, ELC Misc. E204 of 2022
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the taxation of specified items of the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs and re-assessment
No Notice of Objection to taxation was ever filed within the statutory timeframe, rendering the Reference incompetent; and no error of principle was demonstrated
Costs
The Chamber Summons dismissed with costs to the Advocates; the Advocates are awarded costs for both applications.
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.
In the absence of a Notice of Objection to taxation, properly identifying the items objected to and filed within the statutory timeframe, the Reference before the Court is incompetent.
The Notice of Objection to taxation is the equivalent of a memorandum of appeal which identifies the grounds of appeal in an appeal.
The Client’s reference having been disallowed, the Court enters judgment for the Advocate against the Client for the sum of Kshs. 22,452,846.32/=.
The Chamber Summons dated 9/2/2026, filed in ELC Misc. E202 of 2022, ELC Misc. E203 of 2022, and ELC Misc. E204 of 2022, is hereby dismissed with costs to the Advocates.
The Notices of Motions dated 29/5/2026 in ELC Misc. E202 of 2022, ELC Misc. E203 of 2022 and ELC Misc. E204 of 2022 are allowed, and judgment is hereby entered for the Advocates against the Client
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent dates: the ruling is described as determining applications dated 9/2/2026 and 29/5/2025 in paragraph 1, but the Advocate's application is dated 29/5/2026 in paragraph 10 and its supporting affidavit sworn 29/5/2026 in paragraph 11; taxation events also dated 2025-2026 in a 2022 file.
The final orders list Miscellaneous ELC E203 of 2022 twice, each with a different decretal sum (21,027,030.00 and 21,415,441.50), presumably one figure belonging to E202 of 2022.
Internal contradiction on interest: the court finds the Advocate included a claim for interest in the Bill of Costs, yet relying on Otieno Ragot holds Rule 7 cannot apply and awards interest under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, though Otieno Ragot made that finding only because interest was NOT included in the bill.
Bill of Costs inconsistently dated: described as dated 23/9/2022 at the outset but later referred to as dated 22/9/2025 in the Advocate's application.
The Client's application is said to challenge items including '44.61' in the prayer but '44, 61' in the grounds, an apparent typographical discrepancy.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chaudhri & Associates v Registered Trustees of Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al – Nahyan (Miscellaneous Civil Application E202 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4812 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Misc. Civil Application No. E202 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4812/eng@2026-07-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.