V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E228 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 497 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that unpaid court filings don't count, unsigned fee agreements aren't binding, and clients who skip taxation must still pay taxed costs with interest.
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 demonstrated grounds to set aside the Taxing Officer's Ruling of 30 September 2024 and the resultant Certificate of Costs (bias, denial of hearing, error of principle, agreement on fees)
- 2.Whether the Respondent and the advocate had an enforceable agreement on legal fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act
- 3.Whether judgment should be entered for the advocate on the Certificate of Taxation, and if so, with what interest
Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer erred in proceeding to deliver the Ruling despite pending applications
The Taxing Officer acted properly: the Motion dated 20 September 2024 had been overtaken by events for failure to prosecute, and the application dated 25 September 2024 was not paid for and therefore not validly on file for consideration.
The Respondent filed a Motion on 20 September 2024 seeking a stay of taxation but did not attend the taxation, so it was overtaken by events. The later application to arrest the Ruling had not been paid for by 1145 hours when parties appeared, and a filing is only complete upon payment of filing fees. The Taxing Officer confirmed this on the CTS platform before delivering her Ruling.
Whether the Respondent's alleged failure to attend taxation due to technological challenges and the alleged bias of the Taxing Officer justified setting aside the taxation
No; the Respondent gave no particulars of technological failures and placed no evidence of bias before the Court.
The Respondent asserted unavoidable technical challenges as the reason for non-attendance but provided no particulars. The allegation of bias against the Taxing Officer was unsupported by any evidence. The Respondent was aware of the taxation date and of the Ruling date but did not participate or file submissions, and could not then claim denial of a hearing.
Whether there was an enforceable agreement on legal fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act
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.
Section 45 permits an advocate and client to agree remuneration in writing, signed by the client or duly authorised agent. The document produced was from the advocate, signed only by one Khadijah 'Uthman for Chokaa & Co. Advocates, and was never signed by the Respondent. It was therefore not an enforceable agreement for purposes of the Advocates Act, and the certificate of taxation could stand.
Legal principles established
#- A filing is only complete and available for consideration by a Court upon payment of the filing fees.
- For an agreement on remuneration under section 45 of the Advocates Act to be enforceable it must be 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.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 94,635/-
- 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
- Original jurisdiction over advocate–client costs and taxation matters under the Advocates Act and Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Relief refused
#Setting aside the Taxing Officer's Ruling of 30 September 2024 and re-taxation of the Bill of Costs dated 8 August 2024
The Respondent failed to attend taxation without adequate explanation, did not pay filing fees on its application to arrest the Ruling, and produced no evidence of bias, error of principle, or an enforceable fee agreement
Claim that interest at 14% was unfounded (raised by Respondent in opposition to the Motion)
The court allowed the interest despite the objection, awarding 14% interest from the date of taxation
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 94,635/-.
The Respondent to pay interest on the costs at 14% from the date of taxation.
The Taxing Oficer 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
#Inconsistent dates given for the application seeking to arrest the Ruling - the grounds state it was filed on 25 September 2024 while the advocate's replying affidavit refers to an application filed on 27 September 2024
The narrative states the advocate moved the Court through a Motion dated 17 October 2024, yet the Respondent had already been granted directions on that Motion on 6 November 2024 after an earlier timeline; also the order for stay directed deposit of the decretal sum but the Deputy Registrar 'raised an invoice' on 19 November 2024, which was not paid
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E228 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 497 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/497/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.