Muri Mwaniki & Wamiti Advocates v Wings Engineering Services Limited [2019] KEELC 3478 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a law firm's bill of costs because the client never instructed the firm—the bank did, and the bank must pay the fees.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an advocate-client relationship existed between the Applicant advocates and the Respondent
No advocate-client relationship existed; the Respondent did not instruct or retain the Advocates, and the bank that gave instructions was the party liable to pay the fees.
Section 2 of the Advocates Act defines a client as a person who retains or employs an advocate or is liable to pay costs. The Respondent neither employed nor retained the Applicant; the instructions emanated from Eco Bank Kenya Limited, and the letter of show provided that the bank would recover legal fees by debiting the borrower's account and itself pay the advocates. Following Desai Sarvia & Pallan and Konosi v Flamco, the bill of costs could not stand against the Respondent.
Jurisdiction of the taxing officer in the absence of an advocate-client relationship
Without an advocate-client relationship the taxing officer lacks jurisdiction and must down tools.
Relying on Konosi v Flamco and Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' v Caltex Oil, the court held that the advocate-client relationship springs from instructions and is the source of the taxing officer's jurisdiction; absent that relationship, jurisdiction is lacking and a question of jurisdiction must be decided at the earliest opportunity.
Legal principles established
#- Without an advocate-client relationship arising from instructions, the taxing officer has no jurisdiction to tax a bill of costs.
Court orders
#- 1.Preliminary Objection dated 20th April 2017 upheld
- 2.Bill of Costs dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Advocates Act, Cap 16 (advocate-client taxation jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muri Mwaniki & Wamiti Advocates v Wings Engineering Services Limited [2019] KEELC 3478 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 20th April 2017 (in a Reference/Bill of Costs). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3478/eng@2019-04-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.