Mabonga t/a Mabonga & Company Advocates v Agricultural Development Corporation & 2 others (Environment and Land Originating Motion E009 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1511 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a lawyer's fee claim because he never proved his former employer actually hired him as an outside advocate.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Objectors/Respondents were served with the Bill of Costs
- 2.Whether an advocate-client relationship/retainer existed between the Applicant and the Objectors
- 3.Whether the decision of the Hon. Deputy Registrar (Taxing Officer) given on 18th September 2025 in Nairobi Misc. Application No. E124 of 2025 should be set aside
Key legal issues
#Service of the Bill of Costs
The Objectors were served, as evidenced by their participation in the taxation proceedings.
The court perused the record in Nairobi Misc. Application No. E124 of 2025 and found the Objectors had filed a replying affidavit sworn by Rose Muohi on 18th July 2025 together with written submissions dated the same day, which referred to the Bill of Costs filed by the Applicant. Their participation in the miscellaneous cause established that they were indeed served.
Existence of an advocate-client relationship/retainer
There was no retainer nor advocate-client relationship between the Applicant and the Objectors.
The Applicant did not deny that he was employed as a legal officer by the 2nd Objector and sat on its management committee preparing leases for tenants, receiving allowances and salary as in-house counsel. No suit was filed by the Applicant and no express instructions were proved. Applying Ochieng Onyango v Akiba Bank and Omulele & Tollo v Mount Holdings, the burden of proving the retainer lay on the advocate, and it was not discharged. The court found an element of dishonesty and conflict of interest on the part of the Applicant.
Jurisdiction of the taxing officer where retainer is disputed
The Taxing Officer erred in principle by proceeding to tax a bill where the advocate-client relationship was in dispute; without such relationship the taxation was a nullity.
Relying on Wilfred N. Konosi v Flamco Limited, the court held that a taxing officer must determine at once whether an advocate/client relationship obtains once the issue is raised, and a decision in taxation where no such relationship exists is a nullity for want of jurisdiction. The Deputy Registrar erred in principle by failing to take into account that the Applicant was a legal officer of the 2nd Respondent and benefited from sitting allowances, and that his claims were not based on deliberate and documented instructions.
Legal principles established
#- Where the issue of want of an advocate-client relationship is raised, the taxing officer must determine it at once; a taxation decision in the absence of an advocate-client relationship is a nullity for want of jurisdiction.
- The burden of proving a retainer lies on the advocate, on a balance of probability.
- Participation in taxation proceedings cures an alleged defect of service.
Court orders
#- 1.The whole decision of the Hon. Deputy Registrar (Taxing Officer) given on 18th September 2025 in Nairobi Misc. Application No. E124 of 2025 is set aside
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Office of the Deputy Registrar (Environment and Land Court), Nairobi
- Nairobi Misc. Application No. E124 of 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference from the decision of the Deputy Registrar (Taxing Officer) in Nairobi Misc. Application No. E124 of 2025, brought by Chamber Summons under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the foregoing, I find the instant Chamber Summons application dated 18th September, 2025 merited and I will proceed to set aside the whole decision of the Hon. Deputy Registrar (Taxing Oficer) given on the 18th September 2025.
Each party to bear their own costs.
A decision in taxation where an advocate/client relationship does not exist is a nullity for want of jurisdiction.
To my mind, there was an element of dishonesty and confiict of interest on the part of the Applicant.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment gives conflicting years for the Deputy Registrar's decision in the opening paragraph versus the rest of the judgment.
The Chamber Summons is described as dated 14th October 2025 in the body but as dated 18th September 2025 in the concluding paragraph.
Internal numbering: paragraphs 1 and 2 are blank and the application's relief items (a) and (b) are marked 'Spent', leaving the substance of those orders unrecorded.
Counsel's roles are inconsistently recorded in the attendance note - 'Kugo holding brief for Munene for Objector/ Applicant' despite Munene acting for the Objectors/Respondents elsewhere in the record.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mabonga t/a Mabonga & Company Advocates v Agricultural Development Corporation & 2 others (Environment and Land Originating Motion E009 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1511 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Reference arising from Nairobi Misc. Application No. E124 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1511/eng@2026-03-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.