Olendo Orare & Samba Advocates LLP v County Government of Siaya (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E025 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4841 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court converted a law firm's taxed fee bill of Kshs. 198 million into a court judgment with 14% interest, ruling a pending fee challenge doesn't block adoption.
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 Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2025 seeking adoption of the Certificate of Taxation as judgment and decree, with interest, is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether a disputed retainer exists under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act
There was no dispute as to the retainer; disputing quantum of fees does not amount to a disputed retainer.
Applying Muriu Mungai & Co Advocates v Mbugua, the court noted the retainer is the contract of employment between advocate and client; challenging quantum, quality of work or alleging breach of fiduciary duty does not dispute the retainer. Here it was uncontroverted that the applicant was retained to act in Siaya ELC No. E019 of 2022 and rendered services, so the caveat of a disputed retainer did not apply.
Whether a pending reference (Misc. E030 of 2025) bars adoption of the certificate of taxation
A mere pending reference does not bar adoption; section 51(2) envisages an actual setting aside or alteration of the certificate, not an anticipated outcome.
The court read section 51(2) as requiring an outcome of a review or reference that alters the certificate before adoption is defeated. The respondent's argument that a pending reference stays conversion was rejected because execution is a distinct process from adoption. Additionally, the reference in Misc. E030 of 2025 had been struck out by a ruling dated 8/05/2026 for want of leave, rendering the authorities relied on inapplicable.
Costs of the application
Costs follow the event; the successful applicant was awarded costs.
Guided by section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court applied the established principle that the successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs, and a departure from that rule must be justified by good and sufficient reasons. Having successfully prosecuted the application, the applicant was entitled to costs.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of taxation need only be adopted as judgment where it has not been set aside or altered and the retainer is not disputed; the mere pendency of a reference does not bar adoption.
- Adoption of a certificate of taxation is an administrative step distinct from execution, and the certificate remains liable to be set aside or altered through review or reference.
Court orders
#- 1.The Certificate of Taxation issued in respect of the taxation order made on 08.08.2025 for Kshs. 198,476,956/= be adopted as judgment and decree of the Court, together with interest thereon at 14% per annum from 21.03.2025 until payment in full
- 2.The costs of the application be borne by the Client/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, Chapter 16, Laws of Kenya
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.
That the Certificate of Taxation issued herein in respect of the taxation order made on 08.08.2025 for the sum of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Ninety-Eight Million, Four Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty-Six Only (Kshs. 198,476, 956/=] be adopted as judgment and decree of this Honourable Court, together with interest thereon at 14% per annum from 21.03.2025
Therefore, the mere existence of a reference would not sufice for purposes of the provisions of section 51(2) and would render an application brought on this basis premature.
disputing the quantum of fees, questioning the quality of the work done, or alleging that the Advocate breached their fiduciary duties during the subsistence of the retainer, does not amount to a disputed retainer under the meaning of section 51(2).
The adoption to me is an administrative process since execution cannot happen in the absence of a judgment and a decree on the certificate of costs as sought.
Issues in the judgment
#Taxation date stated inconsistently in the judgment: the application grounds refer to taxation order of 08.08.2025 but ground (c) says costs were 'taxed by the Court on 10.09.2025'.
The judgment refers to submissions dated 17/4/2026 and judgement dates of 29-30/4/2026, while the ruling is dated 27/07/2026; chronology of the pending reference (delivered 30/4/2026 yet struck out by ruling dated 8/05/2026) is internally inconsistent.
The judgment repeatedly refers to 'Cause No. 30 of 2025' and 'Cause 20 of 2025' as well as Misc. E030 of 2025, creating ambiguity in cause numbering.
The applicant's name is never stated as a party heading; the case number is only inferable from submissions ('Cause No. 25 of 2025').
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Olendo Orare & Samba Advocates LLP v County Government of Siaya (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E025 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4841 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. 25 of 2025 (Advocate-Client). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4841/eng@2026-07-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.