Mabonga t/a Mabonga & Company Advocates v Agricultural Development Corporation & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous (Reference) Application E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2513 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that an employed lawyer cannot bill his employer legal fees, because a salaried advocate's work for their employer is not a client relationship.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Service of the substantive bill of costs
The objection to service fails because the Objectors acknowledged the bill in their replying affidavit and participated fully in the taxation
Although the affidavit of service referred only to the taxation notice, the Objectors filed a memorandum of appearance, a replying affidavit expressly stating they had read and understood the bill, written submissions and proposed alternative figures. Participation in the proceedings cures any defect in service, so the claim of non-service cannot be sustained.
Jurisdiction of the taxing officer where retainer is disputed
The taxing officer has jurisdiction to determine the existence of an Advocate-Client relationship, but erred in principle by failing to do so here
The court distinguished between a disputed retainer and an admitted relationship with disputed terms. The taxing officer must determine want of advocate-client relationship at once; the ruling made no reference to the issue despite the Objectors disputing it. Where the record shows the advocate was a salaried employee of the 2nd Respondent with no separate instructions, retainer agreement or fee note, the relationship is employer-employee, not advocate-client, and the taxation was a nullity.
Existence of an Advocate-Client relationship on the facts
No Advocate-Client relationship existed; the Applicant rendered services as a salaried employee, not as an independently engaged advocate
The Applicant was employed as a legal officer by the 2nd Respondent, remunerated by salary, sitting allowances, bonuses and a telephone stipend. There was no letter of instructions, retainer agreement, resolution appointing him as external advocate, or fee note. His email correspondence did not suffice to establish independent engagement, and no services were rendered in a private capacity distinct from his employment.
Legal principles established
#- A taxing officer has jurisdiction to determine whether an Advocate-Client relationship exists, but a taxation conducted without an existing advocate-client relationship is a nullity for want of jurisdiction
- A judge on a reference may interfere where the taxing officer committed an error of principle, including failing to determine whether an Advocate-Client relationship existed before taxing the bill
- An employed advocate cannot charge his employer legal fees for services rendered in the course of employment for which he is paid a salary
- Any defect in service of a bill of costs is cured by a party's participation in the taxation proceedings
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
- 4.No order as to costs
- 5.Each party shall bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014 - reference to a Judge against the decision of a taxing officer
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 (Reference) Application E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2513 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Originating Motion E015 of 2025 (Reference from ruling of Deputy Registrar of 18th September 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2513/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.