Wetang’ula, Adan & Company Advocates v Juliana Muthoni Kitololo & another [2021] KEELC 4332 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court overturned an KSh 11 million advocate's fee award, ruling that a lump-sum bill mixing different clients, transactions and law firms was fundamentally flawed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Adequacy of the notice of objection under paragraph 11(1) of the Remuneration Order
The letter dated 9/3/2018 constituted an adequate notice of objection despite lacking formal precision
The Remuneration Order prescribes no format for a notice of objection. The clients' letter requested reasons and expressed objection to all items, achieving the object of paragraph 11(1). Locking the clients out for lack of a prescribed format would offend Article 159 of the Constitution. The reference was also filed within 14 days of the taxing officer's response of 4/7/2018.
Errors of principle by the taxing officer
The taxing officer erred in allowing a composite bill covering different transactions, different law firms and different parties
The advocate did not controvert evidence that conveyance work was done by a different firm, Wetangula, Adan, Makokha & Co Advocates. There was no formal retainer agreement, and the taxing officer committed Austin Salmon Kitololo without conclusive evidence he was the instructing client, and was silent on Osman Bahir Dedeoglu. The award was therefore untenable.
Legal principles established
#- The law does not prescribe a statutory format for a notice of objection under paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; substance prevails over form
- A judge interferes with a taxing officer's decision only on error of principle or where the fee is manifestly excessive or manifestly low as to justify an inference of error of principle
- In the absence of evidence to the contrary, parties to the relevant instruments are deemed to be the instructing clients
Court orders
#- 1.The clients' reference succeeded; the taxing officer's award was impugned on errors of principle
- 2.In the absence of an amicable resolution, the law firms which rendered services in the various briefs to prepare and lodge separate bills of costs against the liable clients
- 3.Parties to the reference to bear their respective costs
- 4.The advocate's notice of motion dated 21/6/2018 for entry of judgment fails; parties to bear their respective costs of the said application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference under paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order against a taxing officer's decision; High Court/ELC supervisory jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wetang’ula, Adan & Company Advocates v Juliana Muthoni Kitololo & another [2021] KEELC 4332 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Nairobi ELC Misc App No 98 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4332/eng@2021-02-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.