Ransley Mcvicker & Shaw Advocates v Redstone Management Limited [2021] KEELC 1222 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a valid fee agreement existed under Section 45 of the Advocates Act
No valid fee agreement existed; the handwritten letter by a partner of the Respondent's firm did not meet the statutory threshold, and no written acceptance by the client or proof of payment was tendered before the taxing master
Section 45 requires an agreement to be in writing and signed by the client or authorized agent. The taxing officer ruled the handwritten letter failed this threshold. The acknowledgement of payment annexed to the application was never presented to the taxing master and no proof of payment was provided. Relying on Kahari & Kiai, even an oral agreement requires written acceptance by the client. The court therefore found no agreement existed between the parties.
Whether the taxing officer exercised her discretion judiciously in assessing instruction fees
Yes; the taxing officer considered the transaction, the work undertaken, and the interest of the parties, and no error of principle was shown
The court applied the settled rule that interference requires an error of principle or a manifestly excessive award. The taxing officer indicated she considered the transaction, the work done by the Respondent and the parties' interests, satisfying the Joreth Ltd factors. The Bill sought Kshs 7,175,000/- and the award of Kshs 2,875,000/- could not be said to be excessive. Consequently, the reference failed.
Legal principles established
#- A fee agreement under Section 45 of the Advocates Act is valid and binding only if in writing and signed by the client or duly authorized agent
- A court cannot interfere with a taxing officer's decision unless it is based on an error of principle or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of error of principle
- Even where there is an oral fee agreement, the client must indicate acceptance in writing for it to be valid under Section 45
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons Application dated 7.7.2020 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent/Advocates
- 2.Judgment entered against Redstone Management Limited in favour of Ransley, McVicker & Shaw Advocates in terms of the taxing master's decision dated 5.12.2019 and the Certificate of taxation issued on 6.2.2020 for Ksh. 3,338,961.40
- 3.The Application dated 28.5.2020 is marked as SPENT
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ransley Mcvicker & Shaw Advocates v Redstone Management Limited [2021] KEELC 1222 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Chamber Summons dated 7th July 2021 (reference from Taxing Officer's ruling dated 5th December 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1222/eng@2021-11-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.