Nyagah t/a S.N Nyagah Advocates v Mburu & another (The Administrators of the Estate of Mburu Muigai - Deceased in CMCC Succession Cause No. 260 Of 2020 Thika) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E116 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6121 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in striking out the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs for want of an advocate-client relationship
Yes. The court found an implied advocate-client relationship because the Applicant processed the deceased's title and the Respondents as beneficiaries seek to claim it, and no evidence showed the fees had been paid.
The deceased was a member of Gatagama Housing Estate (1981) Limited which instructed the Applicant to process titles for members. The Applicant processed the deceased's title but was unpaid. The Respondents did not dispute membership or that the Applicant processed the titles, and tendered no evidence that the purchase price and fees were settled. As beneficiaries of the process, an implied retainer arose, so striking out the Bill was an error in principle warranting review.
Whether the review jurisdiction under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 was properly invoked
Yes; the court accepted the error-apparent-on-the-face-of-the-record ground and allowed the review.
The court set out the statutory grounds for review, associated itself with the authority that review is restricted to the parameters set by law, and found that the Taxing Officer's failure to consider the implied advocate-client relationship amounted to an error on the face of the record justifying setting aside the striking-out orders.
Legal principles established
#- An Advocate who renders services from which the beneficiaries of the resulting title benefit stands in an implied advocate-client relationship with those beneficiaries
- A review lies on account of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Court orders
#- 1.Set aside the Taxing Officer's Orders issued on 20th November 2024 in respect to the Applicant's Bill of Costs dated the 24th June 2024
- 2.Direct that the said Bill of Costs be placed before a different Taxing Officer other than Hon. Judith Omollo, for re-taxation
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyagah t/a S.N Nyagah Advocates v Mburu & another (The Administrators of the Estate of Mburu Muigai - Deceased in CMCC Succession Cause No. 260 Of 2020 Thika) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E116 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6121 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not expressly stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 2nd December 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6121/eng@2025-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.