[2021] KEELC 2620 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 2620 (KLR)

The court found that there was no binding written agreement on legal fees between the applicant and the respondent as required by section 45 of the Advocates Act. The fee note relied upon by the applicant was not signed by the client or a duly authorized agent, nor was there any correspondence evidencing such an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 2620 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Executive Super Rides Limited; Respondent: Kibati & Co. Advocates
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 144 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Reference / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation of Advocate Client Bill of Costs
Outcome
Reference dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Judges
EO Obaga
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Fees, Fee Agreements, Jurisdiction of Taxing Officer
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Taxation of Costs Advocate Client Fees Fee Agreements Jurisdiction of Taxing Officer

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Executive Super Rides Limited

Applicant

Kibati & Co. Advocates

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation of Advocate Client Bill of Costs

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding written agreement on legal fees between the applicant and respondent that would oust the taxing officer's jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether the taxing officer had jurisdiction to tax the advocate-client bill of costs in the absence of a written agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no binding written agreement on legal fees between the applicant and the respondent as required by section 45 of the Advocates Act. The fee note relied upon by the applicant was not signed by the client or a duly authorized agent, nor was there any correspondence evidencing such an agreement. The court held that the taxing officer was correct in finding that she had jurisdiction to tax the bill of costs, as no valid agreement ousted her jurisdiction. Consequently, the reference challenging the taxation was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • The reference is dismissed with costs to the respondent.