V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E241 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 583 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that unpaid court filings count for nothing and fee notes signed only by the lawyer are unenforceable, ordering the client to pay the taxed legal costs with interest.
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 Certificate of Taxation should be set aside and the Bill of Costs taxed afresh on the grounds of alleged bias, denial of hearing, and error of principle by the Taxing Officer
- 2.Whether there was an agreement on fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act barring the advocate's claim
- 3.Whether judgment should be entered for the advocate on the Certificate of Taxation and at what interest
Key legal issues
#Whether the Certificate of Taxation ought to be set aside
The Summons was dismissed; the Respondent failed to show error of principle, bias, or denial of the right to be heard, and its Motion to arrest the Ruling was not paid for.
The Respondent did not attend the taxation, offering no particulars of alleged technological failures. Its Motions of 20 and 25 September 2024 were either overtaken by events or unpaid for and thus not validly on file. Allegations of bias were unsupported by any evidence. The Taxing Officer was entitled to proceed and deliver the Ruling.
Whether there was an enforceable agreement on fees under section 45 of the Advocates Act
No enforceable agreement existed because the fee note was signed only by the advocate, not by the Respondent or its authorised agent.
Section 45 permits an advocate and client to agree remuneration before, after or during contentious business, but such agreement is valid and binding only if in writing and signed by the client or authorised agent. The document relied upon bore only the advocate's signature and could not bar the taxed costs.
Whether judgment should be entered on the Certificate of Taxation with interest
The advocate's Amended Motion was allowed; judgment entered for Kshs 86,235/- with 14% interest from the date of taxation.
Having found no enforceable fee agreement and no merit in the challenge to the taxation, the Court adopted the Certificate of Taxation and entered judgment as sought, awarding interest at 14% per annum from taxation.
Legal principles established
#- A filing is only complete and available for consideration by a Court upon payment of the filing fees.
- An agreement on 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 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 86,235/-
- 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 and taxation (Advocates Act; Advocates (Remuneration) Order)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the Taxing Officer's Ruling of 30 September 2024 and re-taxation of the Bill of Costs
No payment of filing fees for the application to arrest the Ruling; no evidence of bias or error of principle; the Respondent snubbed the opportunity to place a fee agreement before the Taxing Officer
Respondent's contention that interest at 14% was unfounded under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act
Court nonetheless awarded 14% interest from the date of taxation
Costs
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 86,235/-.
The Respondent to pay interest on the costs at 14% from the date of taxation.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment awards 14% interest from the date of taxation without expressly addressing the Respondent's objection founded on section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, which the Respondent contended made the interest claim baseless.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E241 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 583 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/583/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.