Katwa Kigen t/a Katwa & Kemboy Advocates v Joyce Reinhard [2020] KEELC 1229 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan High Court struck out an advocate's Kshs 79 million fee bill because a signed fees agreement already governed the advocate's pay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Existence of a valid Section 45 agreement on fees
The letter of 3rd August 2016 and the handwritten endorsement of 7th September 2016 constituted a valid, binding agreement fixing the advocate's fees
The court examined the advocates' letter proposing fees of Kshs 2,500,000 plus related fees, and the endorsement signed by the advocate and clients confirming the balance. The advocate himself treated the agreement as binding by pleading its breach, which confirmed its existence. The court held that an alleged breach could not ipso facto render an agreement non-binding.
Estoppel of the advocate from abandoning the agreement
Having accepted fees lower than the Remuneration Order scale and having been paid Kshs 3,203,000, the advocate was estopped from demanding further fees via taxation
Relying on Njogu & Company Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Ltd, the court held that an advocate who knowingly agrees to fees outside the Remuneration Order cannot turn to taxation to escape that agreement. The client had acted on the agreement and paid Kshs 3,203,000, receipt of which was not denied, so the court would not assist the advocate to wriggle out.
Jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to tax where a Section 45 agreement exists
Where a valid fees agreement exists and has been settled, the Deputy Registrar lacks jurisdiction to tax the bill
Section 45 provides that a written fees agreement signed by the client is valid and binding. Since such an agreement existed and the fees had been paid, taxation of the bill for a different remuneration was impermissible, warranting striking out of the bill.
Legal principles established
#- An advocate who enters into an agreement fixing his fees under Section 45 of the Advocates Act is bound by it and cannot resort to taxation to recover different remuneration
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 25th July 2019 is upheld
- 2.The Advocate-Client Bill of Costs filed on 25th October 2018 is struck out
- 3.Costs of the application to the Applicant/Client
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Taxation of advocate-client bill of costs under the Advocates Act, Cap 16 (Section 45)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Katwa Kigen t/a Katwa & Kemboy Advocates v Joyce Reinhard [2020] KEELC 1229 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment (Malindi; Refers to Malindi ELC Case No. 108 of 2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1229/eng@2020-10-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.