Mabonga t/a Mabonga & Company Advocates v Agricultural Development Corporation & 2 others (Environment and Land Originating Motion E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1510 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court set aside a taxed legal fee bill because the advocate failed to prove his clients had actually hired him.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Service of the Bill of Costs
The Objectors were served, as evidenced by their filing of replying affidavits and participation in the taxation proceedings.
The court examined the record and the affidavit of service in the miscellaneous cause. It noted that the Objectors filed replying affidavits and made submissions before the taxing officer, which demonstrated awareness and participation, curing any alleged defect of service.
Existence of retainer and Advocate-client relationship
There was no retainer nor Advocate-client relationship between the Applicant and the Objectors; the Applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on the Advocate.
Applying Ochieng' Onyango and Omulele & Tollo, the burden of proving a retainer lies on the Advocate. The court found the Applicant's professional claims were not based on deliberate and documented instructions with proof of engagement, and noted a conflict of interest given the Applicant was a legal officer of the 2nd Respondent and benefited from sitting allowances.
Jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to tax the Bill
The taxing officer erred in principle in taxing the Bill where no advocate/client relationship existed; the taxation decision was accordingly set aside.
Citing Wilfred N. Konosi v Flamco, an allegation of want of advocate/client relationship must be determined at once and a decision on taxation where no such relationship exists is a nullity for want of jurisdiction. The court found no retainer existed and the taxing officer failed to consider this, amounting to an error in principle.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proving a retainer lies on the Advocate, on a balance of probability
- A taxing officer has jurisdiction to determine whether an advocate/client relationship exists where it is raised; taxation without that relationship is a nullity
- Participation in taxation proceedings indicates service; claims of non-service after participation are disfavoured
Court orders
#- 1.The whole decision of the Hon. Deputy Registrar given on 18th September 2025 in Nairobi Misc. Application No. E115 OF 2025 is set aside
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court (Deputy Registrar, Hon. Vincent Kiplagat)
- Nairobi Misc. Application No. E115 OF 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against the decision of the Deputy Registrar (Taxing Officer) under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mabonga t/a Mabonga & Company Advocates v Agricultural Development Corporation & 2 others (Environment and Land Originating Motion E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1510 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Nairobi Misc. Application No. E115 OF 2025 (Reference against Ruling of Hon. Deputy Registrar dated 18th September 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1510/eng@2026-03-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.