V Chokaa & Company Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E230 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 490 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that an unpaid court application counts as unfiled, and an unsigned fee agreement cannot lower an advocate's legally taxed fees.
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 Respondent had shown grounds to set aside the Taxing Officer's Ruling of 30 September 2024 and the resultant Certificate of Costs
- 2.Whether the Respondent had a valid agreement on fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act such that adoption of the Certificate of Costs was premature or improper
- 3.Whether the advocate was entitled to judgment on the Certificate of Taxation with interest at 14% per annum
Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer erred in proceeding to deliver the Ruling despite pending applications
No error: the Motion dated 20 September 2024 had been overtaken by events for failure to prosecute, and the Motion dated 25 September 2024 was unpaid and therefore not validly filed
The Respondent failed to attend the taxation of 23 September 2024, rendering its stay application ineffectual. Its later application to arrest the Ruling had not been paid for, and the Taxing Officer confirmed this on the CTS platform before proceeding. A filing is complete only upon payment of filing fees, so the Taxing Officer was entitled to deliver the Ruling. No evidence of bias or denial of an opportunity to be heard was placed before the Court.
Whether there was a valid agreement on fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act
There was no enforceable agreement because the fee note bore only the advocate's signature and not that of the Respondent or its authorised agent
Section 45 permits an advocate and client to agree on remuneration, but such agreement is valid and binding only if in writing and signed by the client or duly authorised agent. The document the Respondent relied on was authored and signed on behalf of the advocate alone, by Khadijah 'Uthman, and bore no signature of the Respondent. The alleged settlement at Kshs 60,000/- was therefore unenforceable and did not bar adoption of the Certificate of Taxation.
Whether judgment should be entered on the Certificate of Taxation and whether 14% interest was payable
Judgment was entered for the taxed sum of Kshs 86,235/- with interest at 14% per annum from the date of taxation
The Certificate of Taxation having not been set aside, the advocate's Amended Motion for judgment on the taxed costs succeeded. The Court granted interest at 14% from the date of taxation as sought in the Motion, notwithstanding the Respondent's contention that the claim for interest lacked statutory or contractual foundation under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Legal principles established
#- A filing is only complete and available for consideration by a Court upon payment of the filing fees; a Taxing Officer cannot be faulted for declining to consider an unpaid application
- An agreement fixing an advocate's remuneration under section 45 of the Advocates Act is only valid and binding if in writing and signed by the client or its authorised agent
Court orders
#- 1.The Summons dated 8 October 2024 is dismissed with costs
- 2.Judgment is entered for the advocate against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 86,235/-
- 3.The Respondent to pay interest on the costs at 14% from the date of taxation
- 4.The advocate to have costs of the Motion
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Advocate-client costs jurisdiction under the Advocates Act (taxation and recovery of advocate's fees); no specific constitutional provision invoked
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the Taxing Officer's Ruling of 30 September 2024 and re-taxation of the Bill of Costs dated 8 August 2024
The Respondent did not attend the taxation, gave no particulars of the alleged technological failures, produced no evidence of bias by the Taxing Officer, and did not pay filing fees for its application to arrest the Ruling
The Respondent's reliance on an alleged agreement settling fees at Kshs 60,000/-
The fee note relied on was not signed by the Respondent or its authorised agent as required by section 45 of the Advocates Act
Costs
The Summons dismissed with costs to the advocate; the advocate to have costs of the Motion
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 Summons dated 8 October 2024 is without merit and is dismissed with costs.
That judgment is entered for the advocate against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 86,235/-.
The Respondent to pay interest on the costs at 14% from the date of taxation.
The Taxing Officer cannot be blamed for declining to consider an application which had not been paid since a filing is only complete and available for consideration by a Court upon payment of the filing fees.
For purposes of the Advocates Act, the Respondent did not have an enforceable agreement on legal fees and the Court so finds.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's opening list is inconsistently numbered; items iii and ii of the Summons appear to duplicate the same stay prayer, and numbering restarts mid-judgment (paragraph 14 mislabelled '2')
The case number of the suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V Chokaa & Company Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E230 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 490 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/490/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.