Gachichio v Twin Properties Limited (Miscellaneous Case 532 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 889 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a client's Kshs 600,000 fee payment records formed a binding agreement, blocking the lawyer from claiming more through taxation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a valid fee agreement existed under Section 45(1) of the Advocates Act
Yes - the court found that there was an agreement with respect to the fees for the trial matter, inferred from the payments totalling Kshs. 600,000, the 'final payment' notation, and the Advocate's failure to disown the receipts or allege mistake or coercion.
Although the receipt was not signed by the client, the court held that a retainer agreement may be inferred from conduct and correspondence, following Adopt A Light and Ali Abdi Mohamed. The Advocate never expressly denied that the sums were paid as legal fees, did not allege mistake, coercion or misdescription, and did not disown the 'final payment' notation. The dispute arose only after judgment in the trial matter, when the client demanded a refund of Kshs. 300,000 paid towards the intended appeal, confirming the trial fees had been settled.
Whether the agreement divested the Taxing Officer of jurisdiction
Yes - by operation of Section 45(6), the existence of the fee agreement divested the Taxing Officer of jurisdiction over the bill insofar as it related to the concluded trial matter.
Section 45(6) provides that where an agreement has been made under Section 45, the advocate's costs shall not be subject to taxation. The agreement for the trial was concluded and fully settled, so taxation could not issue in respect thereof. The Advocate remained at liberty to tax fees relating only to proceedings in the Court of Appeal.
Whether undercharging could allow the Advocate to escape the fee agreement
No - an advocate who benefits from an agreement cannot later invoke the Remuneration Order; he is estopped by his conduct, and it is an abuse of process to do so.
Relying on Njogu & Company Advocates v National Bank of Kenya, the court held that while an agreement contrary to statute may be illegal, an advocate who knowingly enters such an arrangement, secures work on its strength and benefits from it cannot invoke the Remuneration Order to obtain higher fees through taxation. The court emphasised that no court will aid an advocate seeking to wriggle out of a bargain after reaping its benefits.
Legal principles established
#- A fee agreement valid under Section 45(1) of the Advocates Act divests the Taxing Officer of jurisdiction to tax the bill under Section 45(6).
- An advocate who knowingly enters a fee arrangement, secures work and benefits from it cannot invoke the Remuneration Order to escape the bargain; he is estopped by his conduct.
- Whether an agreement on fees exists is a question of fact, the onus lying on the party claiming it.
Court orders
#- 1.The Taxing Officer's decision delivered on 21st May, 2025 be and is hereby set aside
- 2.The Advocate/Respondent shall bear the costs of this reference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference against a Taxing Officer's decision)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gachichio v Twin Properties Limited (Miscellaneous Case 532 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 889 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Misc No. E280 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/889/eng@2026-02-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.