Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially Allowed· [2025] KEELRC 493 (KLR)

V Chokaa & Company Limited v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E238 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 493 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 February 2025
RSRadido Stephen
1,918 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled an unpaid court filing is invalid and enforced a taxed legal bill against Roy Hauliers with interest, because no valid signed fee agreement existed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The advocate, V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates, taxed its Advocate-Client Bill of Costs on 30 September 2024, obtaining a Certificate of Taxation. Roy Hauliers Ltd (the Respondent) filed a Chamber Summons dated 8 October 2024 seeking stay of execution of the Taxing Officer's Ruling and its setting aside, alleging the Bill was taxed while two of its Motions were pending, that there was a settled fees agreement, that the advocate failed to attend taxation, and that the Taxing Officer was biased. The advocate opposed, arguing the Respondent never attended the taxation, its application to arrest the Ruling was unpaid and thus not validly filed, and that Rule 76 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order permits taxation in the parties' absence. The advocate separately moved by an Amended Motion dated 29 October 2024 for judgment on the Certificate of Taxation for Kshs 211,325/- plus 14% interest. The Respondent relied on a fee note it said evidenced a fees agreement of Kshs 60,000/- paid in full, invoking section 45 of the Advocates Act, and objected to the interest claim under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. The Court found the Respondent was not denied a hearing since its unpaid application was incapable of consideration, no particulars of technological failure or evidence of bias were given, and the fee note bore only the advocate's signature, rendering no enforceable fees agreement under section 45. The Summons was dismissed with costs; judgment was entered for the advocate for Kshs 211,235/- with 14% interest from the date of taxation, and the advocate was awarded costs of the Motion.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent was denied a fair hearing before the Taxing Officer

Holding

No. The Respondent failed to attend the taxation, its Motion dated 20 September 2024 was overtaken by events, and the Motion dated 25 September 2024 was not paid for and therefore was not validly on file.

Reasoning

The Respondent was served with a hearing notice but did not attend or file submissions. Its second application to arrest the Ruling had not been paid for by 1145 hours on the Ruling date. 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 cannot be blamed for ignoring it. Allegations of bias were unsupported by any evidence.

02

Whether there was an enforceable agreement on legal fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act

Holding

No. The fee note relied on was signed only by the advocate's representative and bore no signature of the Respondent or its authorised agent.

Reasoning

Section 45 permits an advocate and client to agree on remuneration, but such an agreement is valid and binding only if in writing and signed by the client or duly authorised agent. The document produced was from the advocate, signed only on behalf of Chokaa & Co. Advocates, and not by the Respondent. No agreement was annexed to the earlier Motion either. The Respondent therefore had no enforceable agreement on legal fees.

p. 5
03

Whether judgment should be entered on the Certificate of Taxation with 14% interest

Holding

Yes. The Summons having failed and no enforceable fees agreement existing, the Motion for judgment on the Certificate of Taxation was allowed with interest at 14% from the date of taxation.

Reasoning

The advocate's Bill of Costs was taxed on 30 September 2024 and the challenge to the Certificate of Taxation failed. The Respondent's contention that interest at 14% lacked statutory or contractual foundation under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act did not prevail; the Court allowed the Motion and entered judgment for the taxed sum with interest at 14% from taxation.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A filing is only complete and available for consideration by a Court upon payment of the filing fees.
  • An agreement fixing an advocate's remuneration is valid and binding under section 45 of the Advocates Act only if in writing and signed by the client or its authorised agent.
  • Under Rule 76 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order a Bill of Costs may be taxed in the absence of the parties.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Summons dated 8 October 2024 is dismissed with costs
  2. 2.Judgment is entered for the advocate against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 211,235/-
  3. 3.The Respondent to pay interest on the costs at 14% from the date of taxation
  4. 4.The advocate to have costs of the Motion
Jurisdiction invoked
First-instance jurisdiction over advocate-client taxation and applications for judgment on a Certificate of Taxation

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "V Chokaa & Company Limited v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E238 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 493 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/493/eng@2025-02-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.