Kilonzo and Aziz Co. Advocates v County Government of Kilifi (Miscellaneous Application 14 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 4796 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it cannot decide lawyer-client fee disputes; only the High Court can, so Kilifi County's application was struck out.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over a dispute arising from a consent order on advocate-client fees
The ELC lacks jurisdiction; the appropriate forum for disputes relating to the advocate-client fee contract (including the consent) is the High Court
The court relied on precedent holding that advocate-client fee disputes vest exclusive jurisdiction in the High Court, while party-and-party costs taxation belongs to the court in which the suit was filed. Although a prior fee agreement existed, the parties later recorded a consent in ongoing proceedings; that consent remains a contractual engagement whose disputes lie in the High Court, not this specialized court.
Whether the application is a nullity for lack of challenge to the fee agreement of 22/10/2021
The second limb was upheld; the applicant's real grievance was the consent order, not the formal agreement, so the proceedings were null
Section 45(2) permits a client to apply to set aside a formal fees agreement. The court found the only formal agreement was that dated 22/10/21, whose terms were not the applicant's grievance; the agreement was merely a launching pad to attack the later consent. Hence the proceedings were null, though any dispute on the formal agreement belongs to the High Court.
Whether the application is time barred under Section 45(2)(A) of the Advocates Act
The ground was superfluous because the application did not challenge the 22/10/2021 fee agreement, leaving no date from which to compute limitation
Since the court found the application was not made to challenge the fees agreement dated 22/10/2021, there was no lodgment date by which the statutory time bar could be computed, rendering the third limb of the preliminary objection unnecessary to determine.
Legal principles established
#- Disputes between advocate and client over fees, including formal fee agreements, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court and not courts of equal status established under Article 162
- Section 45(2) of the Advocates Act applies only to formal fees agreements between advocate and client, not to consent orders recorded in court
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 15th February, 2024 succeeds
- 2.The notice of motion dated 9/2/2024 (also referred to as dated 13/2/2024) is struck out with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162 of the Constitution (specialized court jurisdiction); Section 45(2) of the Advocates Act vesting advocate-client fee disputes in the High Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kilonzo and Aziz Co. Advocates v County Government of Kilifi (Miscellaneous Application 14 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 4796 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Miscellaneous Application (ruling on Preliminary Objection dated 15th February, 2024 arising from Notice of Motion dated 9/2/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4796/eng@2024-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.