Pineapples Edge Limited v Kipkenei & Co Advocates (Miscellaneous Application 010 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 1412 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a Kshs. 27.8 million legal fee award, ruling a client cannot deny hiring an advocate whose work for it is shown by conduct and correspondence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Existence of advocate-client relationship
An advocate-client relationship existed; the Applicant was estopped from denying it gave instructions, as shown by the memorandum of appearance, preliminary objection and email correspondence.
The court reviewed the correspondence, including the Applicant's Chairlady's email of 18th October 2022 introducing other lawyers to work with the Respondent on the EACC suits. The Respondent entered appearance on 6th July 2022, filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection which was heard and determined. Relying on Omulele & Tollo and Ochieng' Onyango, Kibet & Ohaga, the court held retainer can be inferred from conduct and need not be written.
Instruction fee (item 1) - error of principle
No error of principle; the Taxing Master considered the value of the subject matter, importance of the matter, conduct of parties and time spent, and the fee was within his discretion.
Applying Joreth Limited v Kigano and Associates, the value of the subject matter may be gleaned from the pleadings or, if not ascertainable, the Taxing Officer may use discretion considering the nature and importance of the cause. The Taxing Master took into account the value of the subject matter (public land allocated irregularly), the importance of the matter and the conduct of proceedings. The Applicant failed to show the calculation was erroneous.
Getting up fee (item 9)
The getting up fee of one-third of the instruction fee was in order notwithstanding the matter did not proceed to hearing.
Under Schedule 6 paragraph 2 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, no getting up fee is chargeable until the case is confirmed for hearing, and where not heard the taxing officer must be satisfied the case was prepared for trial. The Respondent filed a Preliminary Objection which was heard and a ruling delivered, satisfying the court that the case had been prepared, so there was no basis to interfere.
Items 19-34 and 35-55 (higher scale, attendances and folios)
The items were drawn to scale; the court was not satisfied there was an error of principle or manifestly excessive fees.
The court found the items had been drawn to scale and that the decision was not based on an error of principle, nor were the fees manifestly excessive. Applying the First American Bank principles, interference with taxation requires an error of principle or manifest excess; neither was demonstrated, so the Taxing Master's discretion would not be disturbed.
Legal principles established
#- An advocate need not obtain written authority from a client; retainer may be implied or inferred from the conduct of the parties.
- Ascertainment of an advocate-client relationship is a precondition to a Taxing Officer's jurisdiction to tax a bill of costs.
- A court may interfere with a Taxing Master's decision only where it is based on an error of principle or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive.
- No getting up fee is chargeable until a case is confirmed for hearing; where not heard, the taxing officer must be satisfied the case was prepared for trial.
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is dismissed with costs.
- 2.The decision of the Taxing Master delivered on 5th September 2024 taxing the Respondent's Bill of Costs dated 19th October 2023 at Kshs. 27,846,050/= is upheld.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, Cap 16 and Sections 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pineapples Edge Limited v Kipkenei & Co Advocates (Miscellaneous Application 010 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 1412 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 19th September, 2024 (Reference under Rule 11 Advocates Remuneration Order). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1412/eng@2025-03-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.