Pineapples Edge Limited v Kipkenei & Co Advocates (Miscellaneous Application 011 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 1413 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed a company must pay its lawyer Kshs. 27.9 million in fees, holding that lawyer-client relationships can exist without a written agreement.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an advocate-client relationship existed between the parties
The Taxing Master correctly found that an advocate-client relationship existed; the retainer could be implied from the correspondence and the Respondent's steps in the litigation, and the Applicant is estopped from denying the instructions.
The court examined the course of dealings: the Respondent entered appearance for the Applicant in Nakuru ELC 37 and 38 of 2022, filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection which was heard and determined, and exchanged emails with the Applicant's chairlady who asked the Respondent to work with new advocates and hand over files. Relying on Black's Law Dictionary, Halsbury's Laws of England and the Omulele & Tollo and Ochieng' Onyino Kibet & Ohaga decisions, the court held that a retainer need not be written and may be inferred from conduct, implying the Applicant's agreement to the Respondent's representation.
Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle in taxing the instruction fee (item 1) at Kshs. 20,832,375/-
No error of principle was established; the Taxing Master properly exercised his discretion considering the value of the subject matter, the importance of the matter and the general conduct of the proceedings.
Applying First American Bank v Shah and Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates, the court noted that the value of the subject matter may be ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, or by the Taxing Officer's discretion. The Taxing Master took into account the value of the subject matter (a public utility property allegedly irregularly alienated), the importance of the matter, the conduct of the parties and the time spent. The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the calculation was outside the scale fees or not based on the Taxing Master's discretion.
Whether the getting up fee (item 9) of Kshs. 6,944,125/- was payable where the matter did not proceed to hearing
The getting up fee was in order since the Respondent filed and argued a Preliminary Objection which was heard and determined, satisfying the requirement that the case be prepared for trial.
Schedule 6 paragraph 2 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 permits a getting up fee of not less than one-third of the instruction fee where issues are joined, provided no fee is chargeable until the case is confirmed for hearing. The court reasoned that the filing, hearing and determination of the Preliminary Objection demonstrated preparation and progression of the case, so there was no compelling reason to interfere with the award, the matter having been assessed as one-third of the instruction fee.
Whether items 15-30 (higher scale attendances) and items 31-53 (drawing fees without proof of folios) were wrongly taxed
The items were drawn to scale and the court was not satisfied that the Taxing Master's discretion ought to be interfered with; no error of principle and no manifestly excessive award was shown.
The court applied the First American Bank v Shah principles, observing that judicial review of taxation quantum is circumscribed unless there is a clear error of principle or the sums awarded lead to an injustice. The court found the items had been drawn to scale and declined to disturb the Taxing Master's exercise of discretion, concluding the decision was neither based on an error of principle nor manifestly excessive.
Legal principles established
#- An advocate need not obtain written authority from a client; a retainer may be implied from the conduct of the parties.
- A court cannot interfere with a Taxing Master's discretion unless the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive.
- No getting up fee is chargeable until a case is confirmed for hearing, and where it is not heard the taxing officer must be satisfied the case was prepared for trial.
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is dismissed with costs
- 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 011 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 1413 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 19th September, 2024 (Reference against Taxing Master's ruling of 5th September, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1413/eng@2025-03-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.