V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E234 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 560 (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 Taxing Officer's Ruling and Certificate of Taxation dated 30 September 2024 should be set aside
- 2.Whether judgment should be entered for the advocate on the Certificate of Taxation
- 3.Whether the Respondent had a valid agreement on fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act
- 4.Whether the advocate was entitled to interest at 14% per annum
Key legal issues
#Validity of a fee agreement under section 45 of the Advocates Act
The fee note relied on by the Respondent was signed only by the advocate and not by the Respondent or its authorised agent, hence no enforceable agreement on legal fees existed
Section 45 permits an advocate and client to agree on remuneration before, after or in the course of business, but such agreement must be in writing and signed by the client or authorised agent. The document produced was authored and signed only by the advocate's representative, Khadijah 'Uthman, and bore no signature from the Respondent. It therefore failed to meet the statutory requirement and could not displace the taxed advocate-client costs.
Whether the Taxing Officer erred in proceeding to rule despite pending applications
The Taxing Officer acted properly because the application dated 25 September 2024 had not been paid for, and a filing is only complete upon payment of filing fees
The Respondent's Motion dated 20 September 2024 was overtaken by events when it failed to attend the taxation. The later Motion dated 25 September 2024 seeking to arrest the ruling had not attracted filing fees by the time parties appeared. The Taxing Officer verified the CTS platform before ruling. Since an unpaid filing is not available for consideration, the Taxing Officer committed no error of principle in delivering the ruling on the Bill of Costs.
Entitlement to interest on taxed costs
Judgment entered with interest at 14% from the date of taxation notwithstanding the Respondent's objection based on section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act
The advocate sought interest at 14% per annum from 8 August 2024. The Respondent argued the claim was not founded on statute or contract. The Court nonetheless awarded interest at 14% but pegged it to the date of taxation rather than the date of the fee note, aligning the award with the taxation outcome.
Legal principles established
#- A filing is only complete and available for consideration by a court upon payment of filing fees
- An agreement fixing an advocate's remuneration under section 45 of the Advocates Act is only valid 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 154,324/-
- 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
- Advocates Act, taxation of advocate-client bill of costs under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Relief refused
#Setting aside the Taxing Officer's Ruling of 30 September 2024 and fresh taxation of the Bill of Costs dated 8 August 2024
No error of principle shown; the application to arrest the ruling was unpaid for and the Respondent failed to attend taxation or particularise its technological challenges
Alleged bias of the Taxing Officer
No evidence of bias was placed before the Court
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 154,324/-.
For purposes of the Advocates Act, the Respondent did not have an enforceable agreement on legal fees and the Court so finds.
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.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering inconsistency: the advocate's submissions are stated as filed on 20 January 2025 after the appearance of 27 January 2025 (paragraph 9 versus paragraph 8 chronology)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E234 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 560 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/560/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.