Mabonga t/a Mabonga & Company Advocates v Agricultural Development Corporation & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E010 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2508 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that a salaried in-house lawyer cannot bill his employer as a client, voiding the entire bill of costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction to tax the bill where the retainer was disputed
The taxing officer may determine the existence of an Advocate–Client relationship, but having raised the issue, the taxing officer erred in principle by failing to determine it and by taxing a bill unsupported by any retainer.
The court relied on Konosi v Flamco for the proposition that a taxing officer has jurisdiction to decide want of advocate-client relationship and that a decision where no such relationship exists is a nullity. On the record, the Applicant was a salaried legal officer of the 2nd Respondent with no separate instructions, retainer agreement, fee note or resolution appointing him externally. The ruling made no reference to the disputed relationship. Following Thuo Kanai and the earlier Mabonga decision, the court held the relationship was employer-employee, not advocate-client.
Whether the Objectors' allegation of non-service of the bill of costs vitiated the taxation
Any defect in service was cured by the Objectors' express acknowledgment of and participation in the taxation proceedings.
Although the affidavit of service dated 1st July 2025 referred only to service of the taxation notice, the Objectors filed a replying affidavit on 18th July 2025 in which the deponent expressly stated she had read and understood the Applicant's Advocate-Client Bill of Costs and responded to it, along with a memorandum of appearance and written submissions proposing alternative figures. On that record, the contention that they were unaware of the bill could not be sustained.
The parameters within which a judge may interfere with a taxing officer's decision
Interference is warranted only where there is an error of principle or where the award is manifestly excessive or deficient; the court adopted the settled principles including those of the Supreme Court.
The court applied Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates and the Supreme Court's decision in NGO Coordination Board v EG & 5 others, which enumerate error of principle, manifest excess or deficiency, fair reimbursement, consistency with previous awards, and the requirement that the taxing officer's discretion be exercised judicially as the grounds on which a single judge may disturb a certificate of taxation.
Legal principles established
#- A taxing officer has jurisdiction to determine whether an Advocate–Client relationship exists before taxing a bill.
- An employed advocate paid a salary by his employer cannot sustain a separate advocate-client bill of costs against the employer absent evidence of independent instructions or a retainer.
- A judge on a reference may interfere where the taxing officer erred on a matter of principle.
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 14th October, 2025 is found to be merited
- 2.The decision of the Deputy Registrar delivered on 18th September 2025 is set aside
- 3.The bill of costs is dismissed with no order as to costs
- 4.Each party shall bear its own costs
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya (Deputy Registrar, taxing officer)
- Advocate-Client Bill of Costs transferred from High Court Civil Registry
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014 (reference against a taxing officer's decision)
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 Miscellaneous Case E010 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2508 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 14th October, 2025 (Reference against taxation). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2508/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.