Njagi Wanjiru & Company Advocates v The City Council Of Nairobi [2016] KECA 474 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal ruled that lawyer's fees must be based on what a client actually wins in court, not inflated claims that failed.
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 value of the subject matter of the suit for purposes of instruction and getting-up fees should have been Kshs.214,047,280 as contended by the appellant or Kshs.55 million as found by the Taxing Officer and upheld by the High Court
- 2.Whether the High Court and the Taxing Officer erred in principle in the taxation of items 1 and 36 of the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs
Key legal issues
#Value of the subject matter for instruction and getting-up fees
The subject matter value was correctly taken as Kshs.55 million and not the Kshs.214,047,280 claimed, because the High Court in the underlying suit rejected the lost profits claim on which the larger figure rested and that finding was never upset
The court examined the judgment of Mugo J in the underlying suit and found the Kshs.214 million figure related to a claim of lost profits which was found not to lie in law; the appellant's own counsel objected to that claim at trial. The High Court on reference had upheld the Taxing Officer's valuation at Kshs.55 million, and the Court of Appeal found no error of principle in that assessment.
Alleged error of principle by the Taxing Officer and the High Court
No error of principle or otherwise was established; the dismissal of the reference under Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order was correct
The appellant argued the Taxing Officer disregarded relevant matters and failed to apply the mandatory minimum fee rule under Part B of the Schedule. The court, perusing the record and submissions, found no basis in law for enhancement of the fees awarded by the Taxing Officer as upheld by the High Court, and rejected the plea for enhancement.
Legal principles established
#- The value of the subject matter for taxation of instruction fees must be anchored in the reliefs actually found in law by the court in the underlying suit, not on claims that failed or were rejected
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya, Nairobi
- H.C. Misc Civil Application No. 34 of 2007
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the High Court under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, Paragraph 11(2) reference process
Relief refused
#Enhancement of instruction fees and getting-up fees as taxed
No error of principle by the High Court or the Taxing Officer; the claim for Kshs.214 million as subject matter was untenable given the High Court judgment in the underlying suit
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
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.
In our view, there is no error of principle or otherwise by the High Court or by the Taxing Officer and we see no basis in law for the claim for enhancement of the fees awarded to the appellants by the Taxing Officer which the High Court upheld.
We reject the appellant's plea for enhancement of the fees as we find no merit in the appeal which we hereby dismiss with costs to the respondent.
The High Court made a finding in the said judgment that the sum of Shs.214,047,280/= claimed by the plaintiffs during the hearing of the suit “on the basis of the statement of affairs” did not lie in law. That finding has not been upset or reversed.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application inconsistently as No.34 of 2007 in the title and No.54 of 2007 in the body
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njagi Wanjiru & Company Advocates v The City Council Of Nairobi [2016] KECA 474 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Civil Appeal No. 151 of 2008. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2016/474/eng@2016-06-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.