V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E232 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 581 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court ordered Roy Hauliers to pay its advocates Kshs 236,995 plus interest, holding that a fee agreement without the client's signature is unenforceable.
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 the Respondent had an agreement on fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act barring the taxation
- 3.Whether judgment should be entered for the advocate on the Certificate of Taxation and whether interest at 14% per annum is payable
Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer erred in proceeding to deliver her Ruling despite pending applications
No error - the 20 September 2024 Motion was overtaken by events for failure to prosecute, and the 25 September 2024 Motion to arrest the Ruling had not been paid for, so the Taxing Officer validly proceeded
The Respondent did not attend the taxation on 23 September 2024, rendering its Motion of 20 September 2024 overtaken by events. Its later Motion of 25 September 2024 to arrest the Ruling was brought to the Taxing Officer's attention, but she confirmed on the CTS system that no filing fees had been paid. A filing is complete only upon payment of fees, so the Taxing Officer committed no error in delivering her Ruling. No evidence of bias or technological failure was presented.
Whether there was an 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
Section 45 permits an advocate and client to agree on remuneration, but such an agreement is valid and binding only if in writing and signed by the client or an authorised agent. The fee note relied on by the Respondent was authored and signed by the advocate alone and bore no signature from the Respondent or its agent. The Respondent also never annexed the alleged agreement before the Taxing Officer. The claim of a settled fee of Kshs 60,000/- therefore fails.
Whether judgment should be entered on the Certificate of Taxation with interest at 14%
Judgment entered for the taxed sum of Kshs 236,995/- with interest at 14% from the date of taxation
Having found no basis for setting aside the Certificate of Taxation and no enforceable fee agreement, the Court allowed the advocate's amended Motion. Judgment was entered for the taxed amount with interest at 14% per annum running from the date of taxation, and the advocate was awarded costs of the Motion.
Legal principles established
#- A filing is only complete and available for consideration by a court upon payment of the filing fees
- A fee agreement is enforceable under section 45 of the Advocates Act only if in writing and signed by the client or its duly 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 on terms
- 3.Judgment is entered for the advocate against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 236,995/-
- 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
- Advocates Act, Civil Procedure Act and Advocates (Remuneration) Order - reference against a Taxing Officer's ruling and suit for judgment on a Certificate of Taxation
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
The Respondent failed to show an error of principle or denial of a hearing; an unpaid filing is not available for consideration and there was no signed fee agreement
Objection to the Certificate of Costs on the ground of retainer dispute and a settled fee agreement
The fee note relied on was signed only by the advocate and bore no signature of the Respondent or its authorised agent
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.
The Amended Motion dated 29 October 2024 is allowed on terms:
That judgment is entered for the advocate against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 236,995/-.
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 date of filing of the Summons is given inconsistently as 8 October 2024 in the orders while the narrative says the Respondent filed a Chamber Summons on 15 October 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E232 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 581 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/581/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.