V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E229 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 505 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed an unpaid court filing counts for nothing, and a fee agreement is unenforceable unless the client signs 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 Taxing Officer's Ruling and Certificate of Taxation dated 30 September 2024 should be set aside and the Bill of Costs taxed afresh
- 2.Whether there was a valid agreement on fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act between the advocate and the Respondent
- 3.Whether the advocate is entitled to judgment on the Certificate of Taxation and interest at 14% per annum
Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer erred in proceeding to deliver the Ruling despite pending applications
The Taxing Officer acted properly; the unpaid Motion of 25 September 2024 was not validly on record, and the earlier Motion of 20 September 2024 had been overtaken by events for failure to prosecute.
The Respondent filed a Motion on 20 September 2024 seeking a stay of taxation but did not attend the taxation, so it lapsed for want of prosecution. The later Motion of 25 September 2024 to arrest the Ruling was never paid for; the Taxing Officer verified this on the CTS platform and the physical file before proceeding. A party cannot rely on an unpaid filing, and allegations of bias were unsupported by any evidence.
Whether there was a binding agreement on fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act
No enforceable agreement existed because the fee note relied on was signed only by the advocate's representative and not by the Respondent or its authorised agent.
Section 45 permits an advocate and client to agree 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 its duly authorised agent. The fee note produced was from the advocate and signed solely by Khadijah 'Uthman on behalf of Chokaa & Co. Advocates, with no signature by the Respondent, so it could not qualify as an enforceable section 45 agreement.
Whether the advocate was entitled to judgment on the Certificate of Taxation and interest
Judgment was entered for the advocate on the taxed costs, with interest at 14% from the date of taxation.
Having dismissed the Summons seeking to set aside the Certificate of Taxation and finding no enforceable fee agreement, the Certificate of Taxation stood. The Court allowed the advocate's amended Motion but entered judgment at Kshs 137,800/- rather than the Kshs 175,785/- sought, and awarded interest at 14% per annum from the date of taxation rather than from 8 August 2024 as claimed.
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 only valid and binding if in writing and signed by the client or its duly 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 entered for the advocate against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 137,800/-
- 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 taxation and reference jurisdiction under the Advocates Act and the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (specific provision not stated)
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 technological challenges, produced no evidence of the alleged fee agreement or bias, and the unpaid application to arrest the Ruling could not be considered by the Taxing Officer
Judgment in the sum of Kshs 175,785/- as sought in the advocate's Motion
The Court entered judgment at the lower sum of Kshs 137,800/-
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 137,800/-.
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 the advocate's Motion as dated 17 October 2024 in one passage but as dated 20 September 2024 in the Respondent's Summons narrative (order v refers to 'the Client/Applicant's Notice of Motion application dated 20th September 2024'), creating some ambiguity about the Motion referred to.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E229 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 505 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/505/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.