V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E236 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 561 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed a company must pay its advocate's taxed costs because its fee agreement lacked the client's signature, and unpaid court filings count for nothing.
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 shown basis for setting aside the Taxing Officer's Ruling of 30 September 2024 and the resultant Certificate of Costs
- 2.Whether the Respondent had an enforceable agreement on legal fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act precluding the claim
- 3.Whether judgment should be entered for the advocate on the Certificate of Taxation, and if so on what interest terms
Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer erred in delivering the Ruling despite pending applications
No error: the Motion dated 20 September 2024 had been overtaken by events for failure to prosecute, and the Motion dated 25 September 2024 was not validly on record because filing fees had not been paid
The Respondent failed to attend the taxation of 23 September 2024, so the 20 September Motion lapsed. It then filed the 25 September Motion to arrest the Ruling but never paid filing fees. The Taxing Officer verified the CTS system, confirmed non-payment, and properly proceeded to deliver the Ruling on the Bill of Costs.
Whether there was a binding agreement on fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act
No: the fee note relied on was signed only by the advocate's representative and lacked the client's signature or that of 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 authorised agent. The document produced was from the advocate, signed by Khadijah 'Uthman for the firm, and bore no signature of the Respondent. It was therefore unenforceable.
Whether judgment could be entered on the Certificate of Taxation and at what interest
Judgment entered for the advocate in the sum of Kshs 72,367/- with interest at 14% per annum from the date of taxation
Having dismissed the Summons to set aside the Certificate of Taxation and found no enforceable fees agreement, the court adopted the Certificate of Taxation and entered judgment accordingly, awarding the claimed 14% interest from the date of taxation as sought in the Motion.
Legal principles established
#- A filing is only complete and available for consideration by a Court upon payment of the requisite filing fees.
- An agreement fixing an advocate's remuneration under section 45 of the Advocates Act is only valid and binding if it is in writing and signed by the client or an 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 is entered for the advocate against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 72,367/-
- 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 jurisdiction over advocate-client costs following taxation by the Taxing Officer (Advocates Act)
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 basis was shown: the unpaid application to arrest the Ruling could not be considered, the Respondent failed to attend taxation without particulars of the alleged technical challenges, and no evidence of bias or of a settled fees agreement was produced
Costs
Summons dismissed with costs to the advocate; the advocate to have costs of the (Amended) 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 72,367/-.
The Respondent to pay interest on the costs at 14% from the date of taxation.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E236 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 561 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/561/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.