V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E240 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 498 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered Roy Hauliers to pay its former advocate Kshs 181,675 plus interest, ruling that an unsigned fee agreement cannot reduce a lawyer's taxed bill.
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 Taxing Officer's Ruling of 30 September 2024 and the resultant Certificate of Taxation should be set aside on grounds of alleged bias, error of principle and denial of a hearing
- 2.Whether there was an agreement on legal fees between the advocate and the Respondent within section 45 of the Advocates Act
- 3.Whether judgment should be entered for the advocate on the Certificate of Taxation and at what interest rate
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent was denied a fair hearing and whether the Taxing Officer was biased
The Respondent was not denied a hearing; it failed to attend taxation without particulars, and no evidence of bias was placed before the Court
The Respondent explained its non-attendance by unspecified technological challenges and alleged bias without proof. The Motion of 20 September 2024 was overtaken by events for want of prosecution, and the 25 September 2024 Motion to arrest the Ruling was unpaid and therefore not properly before the Taxing Officer, who was entitled to proceed to deliver her Ruling.
Whether there was an enforceable agreement on legal fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act
No enforceable agreement existed because the fee note relied on 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 remuneration before, after or in the course of business, but such 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 lacked the Respondent's signature.
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 under section 45 of the Advocates Act is binding only if in writing and signed by the client or its duly authorised agent
- A Bill of Costs may be taxed in the absence of the parties under Rule 76 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Court orders
#- 1.The Summons dated 8 October 2024 is dismissed with costs
- 2.The Amended Motion dated 29 October 2024 is allowed: judgment entered for the advocate against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 181,675/-
- 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 civil jurisdiction to review a Taxing Officer's decision and enter judgment on a Certificate of Taxation (Advocates Act and Advocates (Remuneration) Order); specific enabling article not cited in the judgment
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
No evidence of bias, no particulars of the alleged technological failure preventing attendance, unpaid application could not be considered, and no valid fees agreement was shown
Respondent's contention that the 14% interest claim was arbitrary
The Court nonetheless awarded interest at 14% from the date of taxation in the final orders
Costs
Summons dismissed with costs; 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 181,675/-.
The Respondent to pay interest on the costs at 14% from the date of taxation.
For purposes of the Advocates Act, the Respondent did not have an enforceable agreement on legal fees and the Court so finds.
a filing is only complete and available for consideration by a Court upon payment of the filing fees
Issues in the judgment
#The Motion sought judgment of Kshs 186,675/- but the final orders grant Kshs 181,675/-, an unexplained discrepancy
The court and case number of the suit are not stated in the judgment extract
The judgment records the Respondent filed its replying affidavit to the Motion on '12 January 2025' while the parties appeared on 14 January 2025; the Summons replying affidavit is dated 12 November 2024, possibly a typographical inconsistency
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E240 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 498 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/498/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.