Gathemia t/a Gatheru Gathemia & Co. Advocates v Sheikh & Sheikh - As Trustees of the Sheikh Fazal Ilahi Noordin Charitable Trust (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E187 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7712 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the two Advocate-Client Bills of Costs should be consolidated
Consolidation was declined because the two instructions, though relating to the same property, were distinct (lease renewal by transmission versus compulsory acquisition).
Relying on the Supreme Court's test in Omoke v Kenyatta, consolidation requires common questions of law or fact and desirability of joint disposal. The court found that although both Bills concern LR 37/67 (formerly 209/193), the instructions were different in nature, so consolidating them would not serve efficiency and the Bills should be taxed separately.
Whether the Bill of Costs dated 10th September 2024 is statute barred under Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act
The Bill was filed within the six-year period because the last communication between the parties on the subject matter was in January 2019.
Section 4(1) bars contract actions brought after six years from accrual. The court found no Retainer agreement between the parties. Tracing the correspondence, the last communications were a letter of 13th September 2018 enclosing a valuation report and a letter of 21st January 2019 attaching a National Land Commission letter of 18th January 2019. A Bill filed on 10th September 2024 was therefore within time, and the formal demand of 29th July 2017 did not fix the start of limitation.
Legal principles established
#- Consolidation of suits or appeals will be ordered where there are common questions of law or fact and it is desirable that related matters be disposed of together (as stated by the Supreme Court and relied on here).
- The advocate-client relationship is contractual and governed by the Limitation of Actions Act; limitation runs from when the cause of action accrued, not necessarily from a formal demand (Court of Appeal, applied).
Court orders
#- 1.Declined to consolidate the Advocate Client Bill of Costs filed herein with the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs in Misc. Application No. E186 of 2024 and directed that the two be taxed separately.
- 2.Found that the Advocate Client Bill of Costs dated 10th September 2024 was not statute barred and directed that the same be placed before a Taxing officer for taxation.
- 3.Dismissed the Respondent's Notice of Motion application dated 27th January 2025 with costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over Advocate-Client Bill of Costs; application under Notice of Motion (no specific provision cited in the extract)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gathemia t/a Gatheru Gathemia & Co. Advocates v Sheikh & Sheikh - As Trustees of the Sheikh Fazal Ilahi Noordin Charitable Trust (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E187 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7712 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Misc. Application (Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 10th September 2024) — consolidation application dated 27th January 2025, related to ELC Misc. E186 of 2024 and ELC MISC. E187 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7712/eng@2025-11-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.