V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E239 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 499 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan client lost its challenge to taxed legal fees because no written, client-signed fee agreement existed, and judgment of Kshs 211,325 was entered against it.
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 delivered on 30 September 2024 and the resultant Certificate of Costs
- 2.Whether there was an enforceable agreement on legal fees between the advocate and the Respondent within the meaning of section 45 of the Advocates Act
- 3.Whether judgment should be entered for the advocate on the Certificate of Taxation and at what interest
Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer erred in proceeding to deliver the Ruling despite pending applications by the Respondent
The Taxing Officer acted properly: the 20 September 2024 Motion had been overtaken by events for want of prosecution, and the 25 September 2024 Motion was not paid for and therefore not validly on file for consideration.
The Court examined the CTS platform and the physical file. It found the Respondent did not attend the taxation and did not particularise the technological challenges it alleged. The application to arrest the Ruling had not been paid for by 1145 hours when the parties appeared, and the Taxing Officer confirmed this before delivering her Ruling. Allegations of bias were unsupported by any evidence.
Whether an agreement on legal fees existed under section 45 of the Advocates Act
No enforceable agreement existed because the fee note relied on by the Respondent was signed only by the advocate and not by the Respondent or its authorised agent.
Section 45 permits an advocate and client to agree on remuneration before, after or in the course of contentious business, but such an agreement is valid and binding only if in writing and signed by the client or duly authorised agent. The fee note produced was from the advocate, signed by Khadijah 'Uthman on behalf of Chokaa & Co. Advocates, and bore no signature of the Respondent or its agent. The alleged agreement was never placed before the Taxing Officer either.
Whether judgment should be entered on the Certificate of Taxation and at what interest
Judgment was entered for the advocate in the taxed sum of Kshs 211,325/- with interest at 14% from the date of taxation; the Respondent's objection that 14% interest lacked statutory or contractual foundation was not upheld.
The advocate's Amended Motion sought judgment on the Certificate of Taxation of Kshs 211,325/- plus 14% interest from 8 August 2024. The Court dismissed the Respondent's challenges premised on a retainer dispute and the alleged fee agreement, and allowed the Motion, awarding interest at 14% from the date of taxation rather than from the date of the Bill.
Legal principles established
#- An agreement on remuneration between advocate and client is only valid and binding under section 45 of the Advocates Act if it is in writing and signed by the client or a duly authorised agent.
- A filing is only complete and available for consideration by a court upon payment of the requisite filing fees.
- 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.The Amended Motion dated 29 October 2024 is allowed on terms
- 3.Judgment is entered for the advocate against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 211,325/-
- 4.The Respondent to pay interest on the costs at 14% from the date of taxation
- 5.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
- High Court's jurisdiction over taxation of advocate–client bills of costs and applications to set aside a Taxing Officer's decision under the Advocates Act and the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (specific provision not cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the Taxing Officer's Ruling of 30 September 2024 and fresh taxation of the Bill of Costs dated 8 August 2024
The Respondent failed to attend taxation without particulars of the alleged technical challenges, did not pay filing fees on its application to arrest the Ruling, and produced no evidence of bias or of an agreement on fees
Respondent's claim that an agreement on legal fees of Kshs 60,000/- had been made and paid in full settlement under section 45 of the Advocates Act
The fee note relied on was signed only by the advocate's side and bore no signature of the Respondent or its authorised agent
Hearing and determination of the Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 20 September 2024
The Motion had been overtaken by events for failure to prosecute after the Respondent failed to attend the 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 211,325/-.
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 records a conflict in dates concerning the Respondent's application to arrest the Ruling, stating it was filed on 25 September 2024 in one passage and 27 September 2024 in another.
The Motion is inconsistently dated within the judgment: introduced as a Motion dated 17 October 2024 and amended on 29 October 2024, but later disposed of as the 'Amended Motion dated 29 October 2024'.
A case number for the suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment, and the fee note document relied on by the Respondent is reproduced only as a heading with blank entries.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E239 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 499 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/499/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.