Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 3424 (KLR)

Muri Mwaniki & Wamiti Advocates v Gachemi (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 10 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 3424 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
29 April 2025
JOJ. M ONYANGO
1,684 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court dismissed an advocate's attempt to overturn a taxation ruling, confirming that advocates must prove their fees with proper evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Advocate/Applicant filed a Chamber Summons dated 26th August 2024 seeking to set aside the ruling of Deputy Registrar V. Kachuodho delivered on 22nd May 2018, together with any resultant Certificate of Taxation, on an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 8th February 2017; alternatively, that the Bill be taxed or remitted to another Taxing Officer. The Applicant argued that the definition of 'client' in section 2 of the Advocates Act includes any person who may be liable to pay an advocate's costs, and that the Respondent, as borrower and mortgagor, was liable for the costs of preparing, registering and perfecting a charge. The Respondent denied instructing the Applicant, denied ownership of the suit title, and contended that the advocate failed to prove the work done and disbursements claimed. The court framed a single issue: whether the Taxing Officer's decision should be set aside. Applying the established principle from First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Joreth Limited v Kigano that a court will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's discretion absent an error of principle, the court found the Bill fatally deficient: the instructing bank was unnamed, the owner of the title undisclosed, and no receipts for disbursements were annexed. The burden of proof under sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act lay on the Applicant, and Paragraph 13A of the Advocates Remuneration Order was not a device to cure an advocate's lack of diligence. The authority of Andrew Mukite Musangi was distinguished. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Taxing Officer's decision of 22nd May 2018 should be set aside for error of principle

Holding

No; the Taxing Officer's discretion was properly exercised and there was no basis for interference.

Reasoning

The Bill of Costs failed to disclose the name of the bank that instructed the advocates or the owner of the charged title, and no receipts for disbursements were annexed. The burden of proof under sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act lay on the Applicant. Paragraph 13A powers could not be used to cure the advocate's own omissions. The distinguishing authority cited by the Applicant involved a disclosed bank and admitted instructions, unlike this case.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A court will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's decision unless it is shown that the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was so manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of error of principle.
  • Paragraph 13A of the Advocates Remuneration Order is not intended to cure an advocate's lack of diligence in presenting a Bill of Costs.
  • He who alleges must prove; the burden lay on the advocate to furnish particulars and documents supporting the Bill of Costs.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber Summons dated 26th August 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates ActSection 2
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraph 31
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraph 13A
  • Evidence ActSections 107 and 109
  • Civil Procedure RulesSection 21 Rule 9A

Cases cited (5)

  • First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Others
    (2002) 1 E.A 64
  • Joreth Limited v Kigano & Associates
    (2002) 1 E.A 92
  • R v Kenyatta University & Another
    (2018) eKLR
  • Rachuonyo & Rachuonyo Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Limited
    (2021) eKLR
  • Andrew Mukite Musangi T/A Mukite Musangi & Co Advocates v Naomi Wangai Maina & 2 Others
    (2021) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference against a Taxing Officer's decision under the Advocates Act and Advocates Remuneration Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muri Mwaniki & Wamiti Advocates v Gachemi (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 10 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 3424 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3424/eng@2025-04-29

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.