Kirui t/a Cheruiyot Kirui & Company Advocates v Limo & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E034 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 340 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a lawyer to tax legal fees against a client's estate because an unsigned retainer agreement and unproven payment claims could not stop the claim.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an advocate who has completed the work may pursue taxation of a client bill of costs despite an alleged unsigned retainer agreement
Yes; the alleged retainer (BKL 1) was signed only by the respondents and not by the applicant, so it was not a bar to the taxation application
The court accepted the Court of Appeal position in Omulele & Tollo on proof of retainer and the Gichuki Kingara principle that a retainer lasts until completion of the work. Since the work in the underlying suit was completed, the applicant became entitled to tax the bill. The respondents failed to prove the alleged agreement or payment because the documents referred to (BKL 1 and BKL 2) were either not produced or unsigned by the applicant.
Whether the respondents discharged their burden of proving payment of legal fees and the pendency of an appeal
No; the respondents did not avail the documents relied upon to prove their allegations
The respondents asserted that they paid Kshs 59,000/- in legal fees and that a related appeal was pending (Eldoret ELCA No. E062 of 2025), but failed to annex or avail the document (BKL 2) referred to in their replying affidavit. The court applied sections 107 to 112 of the Civil Procedure Act on the burden of proof and found the assertions unproven.
Legal principles established
#- A retainer agreement lasts until the work is done, and an advocate should complete the work and then tax the bill of costs
- The rationale for taxing costs at the end of the trial is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings in the form of taxation which may lead to references
Court orders
#- 1.That the firm of Cheruiyot Kirui & Company Advocates be allowed to tax their client bill of costs in Kapsabet ELC No. E004 of 2023 Jane Jepkemboi & Bethwell Kibichii Limo v Julius Kipkemboi (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Kibet Arap Ngisirei – Deceased) as per the annexed Bill
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction to order taxation of an advocate-client bill of costs under sections 45, 46 and 47(1) of the Advocates Act (invoked by the applicant)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kirui t/a Cheruiyot Kirui & Company Advocates v Limo & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E034 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 340 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 31st October 2025 (in Kapsabet ELC No. E004 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/340/eng@2026-01-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.