Karweru t/a Karweru & Company Advocates v Mburu & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E017 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 4669 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a lawyer's bid to increase his fees because his own earlier letters contradicted the larger amount he claimed from clients.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court can review a taxing officer's decision and under what provision
The court has jurisdiction to review the taxing officer's decision, but under Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, not Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The court held Order 45 applies only to a court reviewing its own decision, whereas review of a taxing officer's ruling by a judge is governed by Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The summons was expressly brought under Rule 11 and Sections 1A, 3A and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act, so jurisdiction existed.
Whether the letters dated 9-12-2015 and 1-8-2017 constituted a fees agreement
The letters were not themselves the fees agreement but evidence of its existence; the discrepancy in instruction fees lent credence to the respondents' claim of a fee agreement capped at Kshs. 300,000
The applicant's own letter of 9-12-2015 stated instruction fees of Kshs. 300,000 and the letter of 1-8-2017 claimed a remainder of Kshs. 252,400, yet the bill of costs claimed Kshs. 500,000. The applicant offered no explanation, and under Section 120 of the Evidence Act (estoppel) could not contradict its own declarations.
Burden of proof in an application under Rule 11
The burden lay on the applicant advocate to prove entitlement to the orders sought; there was no burden on the respondents
The applicant failed to swear a supplementary affidavit explaining the discrepancy in instruction fees, and did not prove that the fees had not been paid. Having not discharged the burden, the applicant could not obtain review of the taxation.
Legal principles established
#- Review of a taxing officer's decision is under Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, not under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- An applicant seeking review of taxation bears the burden of proving entitlement to the orders sought
- Fees already paid cannot be the subject of an advocate-client bill of costs
Court orders
#- 1.The summons dated 10/4/2023 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the summons awarded to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Sections 1A, 3A and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karweru t/a Karweru & Company Advocates v Mburu & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E017 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 4669 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 10/4/2023 (Nyeri ELC 203/2013 consolidated with Nyeri ELC 168/2015 – fee dispute). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4669/eng@2025-06-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.