V Chokaa & Company Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E231 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 555 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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's Summons to set aside the Taxing Officer's Ruling and Certificate of Taxation of 30 September 2024 should be allowed
- 2.Whether the advocate's Motion for entry of judgment on the Certificate of Taxation should be granted, including the claim for interest
Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer erred in proceeding to tax and rule despite pending applications
No error; the Motion dated 20 September 2024 was overtaken by events, and the Motion dated 25 September 2024 was unpaid and could not be considered
The Respondent failed to attend taxation and its first Motion was overtaken by events. Its second Motion seeking to arrest the ruling had not been paid for by 1145 hours when parties appeared. The Taxing Officer verified this on the CTS platform and properly proceeded to rule. No particulars of technological failure and no evidence of bias were provided.
Whether there was a valid agreement on fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act
No; the fee note was signed only by the advocate, not by the client or its authorised agent
Section 45 permits an advocate and client to agree remuneration, 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 bore only the advocate's signature, that of Khadijah 'Uthman, and lacked the Respondent's signature. It was therefore not enforceable.
Whether judgment should be entered on the Certificate of Taxation and at what amount and interest
Judgment entered for the advocate in Kshs 175,785 with 14% interest from the date of taxation
The Certificate of Taxation having not been set aside, the court entered judgment on it. The figure of Kshs 175,785 was granted, which differs from the Kshs 137,800 sought in the Motion. Interest at 14% was awarded from the date of taxation, the Respondent's objection based on section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act not prevailing.
Legal principles established
#- A filing is only complete and available for consideration by a court upon payment of filing fees
- An advocate-client agreement on remuneration is only valid and binding if in writing and signed by the client or authorised agent
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 175,785/-
- 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
- Reference against a Taxing Officer's ruling and adoption/entry of judgment on a Certificate of Taxation under the Advocates Act and Advocates (Remuneration) Order (Rule 76 invoked)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the Taxing Officer's Ruling and Certificate of Taxation
No error of principle; the application to arrest the ruling was not paid for; no evidence of bias or an enforceable fees agreement
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 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.
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 175,785/-.
The Respondent to pay interest on the costs at 14% from the date of taxation.
Issues in the judgment
#The Motion sought judgment of Kshs 137,800 but the court entered judgment for Kshs 175,785 without explanation of the discrepancy; the interest award of 14% was made despite the court noting the Respondent's section 27(2) Civil Procedure Act objection that the rate had 'no basis' without stating why that objection failed
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V Chokaa & Company Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E231 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 555 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/555/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.