Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of Motion dated 10th February 2026· [2026] KEELC 1853 (KLR)

Ondabu & Co Advocates v Nyarangi & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E265 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1853 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
25 March 2026
MKMOHAMMED N. KULLOW
1,128 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court let a client challenge a Kshs 853,003 legal fee bill because the law firm could not prove she had actually hired them.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the High Court at Nairobi (Mohammed N. Kullow, J) determined a Notice of Motion dated 10th February 2026 in which Becky Nyarangi sought an order compelling the respondent advocates to furnish a sale agreement in respect of LR 13874/4 and 13874/5, and leave to defend a bill of costs dated 8th July 2024 claiming Kshs 853,003.00 in advocate-client costs, which had proceeded ex parte. The single issue for determination was whether the applicant had instructed the respondent advocates to act for her in the conveyancing transaction underlying the fee claim. The respondent advocates, who filed submissions but no replying affidavit, argued that a retainer could be inferred from the applicant's conduct - appearing at their offices and leaving passport photos - relying on Njeru Nyaga & Company Advocates v George Ngure Kariuki for the proposition that a retainer need not be in writing. The court reviewed Section 45 of the Advocates Act and Rules 69 and 77 of the LSK Code of Standards of Professional Practice and Ethical Conduct, and held that although a retainer may be inferred absent formal documentation, the advocate bears the onus of proving a disputed retainer and must show cogent reason for the lack of formalisation. Finding the applicant-advocate never formally came on record and the transfer documents not produced, the court allowed the application, permitting the applicant to defend the bill of costs, with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Existence of an advocate-client retainer

Holding

The court was not persuaded on the existence of a retainer based on the documentary evidence availed, and allowed the applicant leave to defend the bill of costs

Reasoning

The court accepted that a retainer may sometimes be inferred from conduct, but held that where a retainer is disputed, the burden of proving it lies on the advocate. The applicant-advocate never formally came on record, the transfer documents said to evidence instructions were not produced, and the advocates did not call evidentiary support. The averments in the supporting affidavit therefore stood uncontroverted, entitling the applicant to the orders sought.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The onus of proof of a retainer lies on the Advocate where the retainer is disputed
  • Where a retainer is inferred absent formal documentation, the advocate must demonstrate cogent reason for the lack of formalisation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant is entitled to the orders sought in the notice of motion application dated 10th February 2026 and application is allowed
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Advocates Act, Section 45 (advocate-client remuneration and taxation of bill of costs)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ondabu & Co Advocates v Nyarangi & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E265 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1853 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 10th February 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1853/eng@2026-03-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.