Titus Makhanu & Associates Advocates v Hall Equitorial Limited (Miscellaneous Application E280 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2482 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan law firm recovered its taxed legal fees from a client but lost 14% interest because it never claimed that interest in its Bill of Costs.
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 Applicant is entitled to interest on the taxed costs at 14% per annum under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014, having not claimed interest in the Bill of Costs
Key legal issues
#Whether interest under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014 can be claimed for the first time in an application for judgment on a Certificate of Taxation
No. The advocate forfeits the 14% interest if it was not claimed in the Bill of Costs or pursued through a Rule 11 reference against the Taxing Master's ruling
Rule 7 permits 14% interest only where the claim for interest is raised before the bill is paid or tendered in full, and the accepted construction, per the Court of Appeal in the Otieno, Ragot decisions, requires the claim to be made in the fee note or Bill of Costs itself. If omitted at taxation, the advocate must file a Rule 11 reference; raising interest at the section 51(2) enforcement stage is too late and, at best, discretionary. The Applicant here admitted no interest claim was in the Bill and none was captured in the Certificate of Taxation.
Legal principles established
#- An advocate who does not claim 14% interest under Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order in the Bill of Costs, and who files no Rule 11 reference, cannot raise the claim for the first time in section 51(2) enforcement proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Advocate/Applicant against the Client/Respondent for Kshs 61,042.08 in terms of the Certificate of Taxation dated 21st November 2024
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
- 3.The Applicant is at liberty to commence execution for recovery of costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act (enforcement of taxed advocate-client costs)
Relief refused
#Interest at 14% per annum from 14th July 2024 on the taxed costs
The Applicant did not claim interest in the Bill of Costs and, per Rule 7 and binding precedent, forfeits the right to claim it at the enforcement stage
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs.
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.
Borrowing from the above binding precedents, the Court finds that no interest is payable on the costs herein as the Applicant failed to demand interest at the time of drawing and/or serving the Bill of Costs upon the Respondent.
Judgment is entered in favour of the Advocate/Applicant against the Client/Respondent for Kshs 61,042.08 in terms of the Certificate of Taxation dated 21st November 2024.
Each party to bear their own costs.
The Applicant is at liberty to commence execution for recovery of costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The taxed figure is inconsistently stated as Kshs 61,042.80 in the prayers/affidavit and Kshs 61,042.08 in the analysis and final orders
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Titus Makhanu & Associates Advocates v Hall Equitorial Limited (Miscellaneous Application E280 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2482 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 28th January 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2482/eng@2025-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.