[2025] KEHC 1364 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 1364 (KLR)

The court found that there was a valid and binding retainer agreement between the applicant and the respondents, which clearly set out the terms and capped the legal fees payable. In the presence of such an agreement, section 45 of the Advocates Act precludes the taxation of an advocate/client bill of costs. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 1364 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joe N Mwanthi & Co Advocates; Respondent: Javisapa Enterprises Limited; Respondent: Nalo Construction Co Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Cause 198 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Reference Against Taxation Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
PM Mulwa
Legal Topics
Advocate Client Costs, Retainer Agreements, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Advocate Client Costs Retainer Agreements Taxation of Costs

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joe N Mwanthi & Co Advocates

Applicant

Javisapa Enterprises Limited

Respondent

Nalo Construction Co Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Cause / Reference Against Taxation Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the existence of a valid retainer agreement precludes taxation of an advocate/client bill of costs.
  2. 2 Whether the retainer agreement between the parties was valid and binding under section 45 of the Advocates Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was a valid and binding retainer agreement between the applicant and the respondents, which clearly set out the terms and capped the legal fees payable. In the presence of such an agreement, section 45 of the Advocates Act precludes the taxation of an advocate/client bill of costs. The taxing officer correctly considered the existence and terms of the retainer agreement and was right to dismiss the bill of costs. Consequently, the application seeking to set aside the taxing officer's ruling and to have the bill taxed afresh was without merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application dated 24th March 2021 is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.