Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutAdvocate/Client Bill of Costs application - Notice of Motion dated 5th August 2020 (arising from Mombasa ELC Constitutional Petition 171 of 2016)· [2020] KEELC 623 (KLR)

J.M. Njenga & Co Advocates v Monica Wambui Kamau & 4 others [2020] KEELC 623 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 November 2020
1,807 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out an advocate's bid to make a non-party pay legal fees, ruling a prior costs order from the main case was required first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Advocate/Applicant, Jeremy Njenga & Company Advocates, filed a Notice of Motion dated 5th August 2020 under Sections 2 and 50(1) of the Advocates Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking to have Jacob Kamau Kahiu deemed a client under Section 2 of the Advocates Act, liable jointly and severally with the 1st respondents for costs to be taxed under an advocate/client bill of Kshs. 20,503,169.80, and to have him enjoined as a client/respondent for purposes of taxation. The applicant contended that Kahiu instructed it to prosecute Mombasa ELC Constitutional Petition No. 171 of 2016 (African & Oil Company Limited v Attorney General & Others), had an interest in the suit property MN/VI/755, entered a fee agreement and a Memorandum of Understanding with the 1st respondents, held a power of attorney, and had paid some disbursements. The court noted it was not disputed that Kahiu was not a party to the parent suit. Adopting Muchelule J's decision in Kamau Kuria & Company Advocates v Lucy Nyambura Kinyanjui, the court held that Section 50 relief requires a prior order in the substantive matter that costs be borne by the interested person, which the applicant never obtained. It further held that joinder should have been sought in the parent matter under Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and that the taxation court was not competent to grant the orders sought. The application was found improperly before the court and was struck out with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether Section 50 of the Advocates Act permits the applicant to have a non-party deemed a client for taxation without a prior court order

Holding

No; the applicant should have obtained an order in the parent matter that its costs be borne by the intended 2nd respondent before invoking Section 50

Reasoning

Section 50(1) allows a person interested in property from which costs are payable to apply for taxation as if he were the party chargeable. Relying on Kamau Kuria & Company Advocates v Lucy Nyambura Kinyanjui, the court held that such relief requires a prior order in the substantive matter allocating costs. Since the applicant never obtained such an order in ELC Constitutional Petition No. 171 of 2016, Section 50 could not assist it, and the taxation court lacked competence to grant the orders sought.

p. 3
02

Whether joinder of the intended 2nd respondent could be effected in the taxation proceedings

Holding

No; the joinder application should have been made in the parent matter under Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Reasoning

The court noted that although the intended 2nd respondent had an interest in the suit property and had undertaken to settle fees, joinder for purposes of the litigation is governed by Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and must be sought in the substantive suit, not in a taxation application in the advocate/client reference.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Under a contract of retainer only the client is liable to pay fees to the advocate retained (as stated in the cited authority)
  • Where a party seeks that fees be borne by a non-chargeable party under Section 50 of the Advocates Act, an order of the court to that effect must first be obtained

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 5th August 2020 is struck out with no order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Act (Cap 16)Section 2
  • Advocates Act (Cap 16)Section 50(1), (2), (3) and proviso
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27

Cases cited (2)

  • Kamau Kuria & Company Advocates –v- Lucy Nyambura Kinyanjui & 2 Others
    (2019) eKLR
  • Roy Dean –v- Allin and Watts (A Firm)
    (2001) EWCA Civ. 758
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 2 and 50(1) of the Advocates Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "J.M. Njenga & Co Advocates v Monica Wambui Kamau & 4 others [2020] KEELC 623 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Advocate/Client Bill of Costs application - Notice of Motion dated 5th August 2020 (arising from Mombasa ELC Constitutional Petition 171 of 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/623/eng@2020-11-18

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.