Mabonga t/a Mabonga & Company Advocates v Agricultural Development Corporation & 2 others (Environment and Land Originating Motion E008 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2701 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court set aside a taxed legal fees bill because no advocate-client relationship existed between the lawyer and the client.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Deputy Registrar's taxation ruling of 18th September 2025 should be set aside
The ruling was set aside because the Taxing Officer erred in principle by failing to address the absence of a Retainer and the conflict of interest raised by the Objectors.
The court found there was no Retainer or advocate-client relationship between the Applicant and the Objectors. The Taxing Officer failed to take into account the Objectors' arguments on want of retainer, conflict of interest, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations and the 3rd Respondent's Management Committee Charter, and that the Applicant benefited from three revenue streams: salary as Legal Officer, sitting allowances, and purported legal fees from tenants. On that basis the decision was erroneous in principle and was set aside.
Whether the Objectors were served with the Bill of Costs
Any alleged defect of service was cured by the Objectors' full participation in the taxation proceedings.
The Objectors filed a Memorandum of Appearance on 18th July 2025, a replying affidavit sworn by Rose Muohi on the same date, and written submissions on 20th August 2025. The court reasoned that if they were truly not served, they could not have fully participated; their participation therefore cured the alleged defect of service.
Whether the Taxing Officer had jurisdiction where want of retainer is raised
A taxing officer must determine at once whether an advocate-client relationship exists when that issue is raised; failure to do so where none exists renders the taxation a nullity.
Relying on Wilfred N. Konosi v Flamco Limited, the court endorsed the position that a taxing officer has jurisdiction to determine want of advocate-client relationship and must address the allegation immediately. Since the court found no retainer existed, the Deputy Registrar's failure to determine that question amounted to an error in principle, justifying setting aside the ruling.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proving a retainer rests on the advocate, on a balance of probability
- A taxing officer has jurisdiction to determine want of advocate-client relationship when raised, and a taxation conducted where no advocate-client relationship exists is a nullity
- Participation in taxation proceedings cures an alleged defect of service
Court orders
#- 1.The whole decision of the Hon. Deputy Registrar given on the 18th September 2025 is set aside
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
- On appeal from
- Deputy Registrar (Taxing Officer), Environment and Land Court
- ELC Misc. Application No. E122 OF 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent and supervisory jurisdiction of a Judge of the Environment and Land Court to review/set aside a Taxing Officer's decision; Advocates (Remuneration) Order (Rule 12 and paragraph 10 cited)
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 E008 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2701 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons application dated 14th October 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2701/eng@2026-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.