[2024] KEELRC 1092 (KLR)
The court found that the advocate completed the instructed legal service on 29 September 2014, and that is the date when time started running for purposes of limitation under section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act. The existence of a retainer did not extend the limitation period, as each instruction forms a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELRC 1092 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Khalwale & Co Advocates; Respondent: Devyan Food Industries Kenya Ltd (Formerly Sameer Agriculture & Livestock Co Ltd)
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Reference Against Taxing Officer's Ruling
- Outcome
- Reference dismissed with costs to the respondent.
- Judges
- S Radido
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Limitation Periods, Taxation of Costs, Retainer Agreements
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Khalwale & Co Advocates
Applicant
Devyan Food Industries Kenya Ltd (Formerly Sameer Agriculture & Livestock Co Ltd)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Reference Against Taxing Officer's Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the advocate/client Bill of Costs was statute barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 2 Whether the existence of a retainer extended the limitation period for filing the Bill of Costs.
- 3 Whether the Taxing Officer erred in law by dismissing the Bill of Costs as time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the advocate completed the instructed legal service on 29 September 2014, and that is the date when time started running for purposes of limitation under section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act. The existence of a retainer did not extend the limitation period, as each instruction forms a distinct contract and the advocate was expected to raise an invoice or fee note upon completion of each service. The Bill of Costs, filed on 15 February 2021, was therefore brought outside the prescribed six-year limitation period. The Taxing Officer did not err in law in dismissing the Bill of Costs as statute barred. The reference was found to have no merit and was dismissed...
Court Disposition
Reference dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Orders
- The Reference is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
Khalwale & Co Advocates v Devyan Food Industries Kenya Ltd (Formerly Sameer Agriculture & Livestock Co Ltd) (Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 1092 (KLR) (15 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELRC 1092 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2021
S Radido, J
May 15, 2024
IN THE MATTER OF ADVOCATE/CLIENT BILL OF COSTS AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES REMUNERATION (AMENDMENT) ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF TAXATION OF COSTS
Between
Khalwale & Co Advocates
Applicant
and
Devyan Food Industries Kenya Ltd (Formerly Sameer Agriculture & Livestock Co Ltd)
Respondent
Ruling
1. On 19 March 2024, the Taxing Officer found that an advocate/client Bill of Costs filed by Khalwale & Co Advocates (the advocate) dated 15 February 2021 was statute barred and dismissed it.
2. The advocate was aggrieved and he filed a Reference seeking orders:i.The Honourable Court be pleased to vacate and set aside in its entirety the Ruling of the Hon F.M. Rashid (M) dated and delivered on 19. 3.2024 dismissing the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 15. 02. 2021. ii.The Honourable Court do find that the Taxing Master erred in law in holding that the Bill of Costs was time-barred.iii.The Honourable Court be pleased to refer the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 15. 02. 2021 for a fresh taxation by a Taxing Officer.iv.In the alternative, the Honourable Court be pleased to re-tax the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 15. 02. 2021 herein.v.Costs of the application be provided for.
3. The advocate’s case was that the Taxing Officer misdirected herself in law in concluding that the Bill of Costs was time-barred since he, the advocate was on a continuous retainer and the Bill of Costs was filed within 2 years of the termination of the retainer on 30 September 2018.
4. The Respondent filed a replying affidavit in opposition to the Reference on 19 April 2024. In the affidavit, it was averred that the Taxing Officer did not err in law as the action was based on contract and the advocate had been presented the Bill more than 6 years after the cause of action arose.
5. According to the affidavit, the advocate had last rendered service on 29 September 2014 while the Bill of Costs was lodged in Court on 15 February 2021. The Respondent invoked the time-barred set out in section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act.
6. The Court gave directions on 22 April 2024, and the advocate filed his submissions on 2 May 2024 and the Respondent on 6 May 2024.
7. The Court has considered the Summons, affidavits and submissions.
8. The advocate acted for the Respondent in Kisumu Cause No 326 of 2013, Eric Onyango Ombara v Devyan Food Industries Kenya Ltd, and the Cause was terminated on 29 September 2014. The advocate only filed a Bill of Costs on 15 February 2021.
9. Before lodging the Bill, the advocate did not send an invoice/fee note to the Respondent.
10. The advocate’s explanation for not raising an invoice or fee note was that he was on a retainer which was terminated on 30 September 2018.
11. In Akide & Company Advocates v Kenindia Assurance Company Limited (2021) eKLR, the Court held that:It follows that upon completion of the services the advocate is tasked to do, he/she is expected to notify the client that the work has been completed and submit a final fee note for settlement.…..Given the facts of the current case, it is established that the applicant/advocate completed the work over twelve (12) years ago. It would not be prudent to call upon the client to settle legal fees for work that was done over twelve years ago. It is not clear why the advocate did not submit his final fee note upon completion of the cases. I do find that the bills of costs are adversely affected by the Limitation of Actions Act and the same are time-barred.
12. In Mwangi Kengara & Co Advocates v Invesco Assurance Company Limited (2017) eKLR, the Court was confronted with the question of whether time started running on the last date the advocate rendered his services as per his bill of cost. The Court held that, in the absence of a moratorium suspending all legal claims against the client, time would start running from when the advocate last rendered his services.
13. A retainer ordinarily signifies that an advocate would be at the call of a client to provide legal services when called upon.
14. Once any particular legal service is completed, the advocate would be expected to raise an invoice or fee note despite the existence of the retainer, for each instruction forms a distinct contract.
15. The task the Respondent gave the advocate instructions to carry out was completed on 29 September 2014, and that is when the time for purposes of limitation started to run.
16. The advocate did not bring his action for legal fees within the prescribed limitation period in section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act.
Orders 17. The Court finds no merit in the Reference and it is dismissed with costs.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED IN KISUMU ON THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY 2024. RADIDO STEPHEN, MCIARBJUDGEAppearancesFor Applicant Khalwale & Co. AdvocatesFor Respondent Eliud Maina Karanja AdvocatesCourt Assistant Chemwolo