Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedChamber Summons application dated 14th October 2025· [2026] KEELC 2747 (KLR)

Mabonga t/a Mabonga & Co. Advocate v Agricultural Development Corporation & 2 others (Environment and Land Originating Motion E014 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2747 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (taxation reference from a Taxing Master's ruling)
7 May 2026
995 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court confirmed that a Taxing Master cannot tax a lawyer's bill of costs without first resolving a dispute over whether the client actually instructed the lawyer.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, by Chamber Summons dated 14th October 2025, sought stay of execution and setting aside of the Taxing Master's ruling delivered on 18th September 2025, arguing that the Taxing Master lacked jurisdiction to tax the Respondent's bill of costs because the Applicant had disputed the retainer, asserting no instructions were given to the Respondent's law firm; the Applicant also contended it was not served with the bill of costs and that unresolved objections had been lodged with the Deputy Registrar. The Respondent opposed, asserting the Applicant participated fully in the taxation and that the Deputy Registrar retains jurisdiction unless a retainer dispute is real and incapable of determination. The court framed a single issue: whether to stay execution of the ruling. Perusing the pleadings, the court noted the Applicant's replying affidavit dated 18th July 2025 clearly raised the issue of retainer. Relying on Kenindia Assurance Co Limited v Olendo, which held that a Taxing Officer acts without jurisdiction where retainer is disputed, and on the Court of Appeal's decision in Konosi v Flamco, which confirmed that the advocate/client relationship is core to the Taxing Officer's jurisdiction under the Advocates Act and the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, the court found the Taxing Master acted outside jurisdiction by taxing the bill without first addressing retainer. The court allowed the application, set aside the impugned orders, directed that retainer be determined first by a different Taxing Master, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Taxing Master had jurisdiction to tax a bill of costs where retainer is disputed

Holding

The Taxing Master acted outside jurisdiction by taxing the bill without first addressing the disputed retainer issue.

Reasoning

The applicant had raised, in a replying affidavit dated 18th July 2025, that no instructions had been issued to the respondent's firm. Citing Kenindia Assurance Co Limited v Olendo and the Court of Appeal's decision in Konosi v Flamco, the court held that the advocate/client relationship is core to taxation jurisdiction and where it is disputed it must be determined as a preliminary issue before quantification of fees.

p. 2
02

Whether the court should stay execution of and set aside the taxation ruling

Holding

The court found merit in the application and set aside the impugned orders pending determination of the reference.

Reasoning

Having found that the Taxing Master exceeded jurisdiction by taxing a bill where retainer was disputed, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the ruling dated 18th September 2025 and directed that retainer be determined first by a different Taxing Master.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A Taxing Officer acts without jurisdiction if they proceed to tax a Bill where the retainer is disputed; the retainer issue must first be determined.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The impugned orders in the ruling dated 18th September 2025 are hereby set aside pending the determination of this reference
  2. 2.The issue of retainer shall first be determined by a different Taxing Master before proceeding to the quantum of costs
  3. 3.Parties shall meet their own respective costs to this application
Jurisdiction invoked
Advocates Act and Advocates (Remuneration) Order - reference against a Taxing Master's ruling

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mabonga t/a Mabonga & Co. Advocate v Agricultural Development Corporation & 2 others (Environment and Land Originating Motion E014 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2747 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons application dated 14th October 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2747/eng@2026-05-07

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