Mulondo & Company Advocates LLP v Huming PVC Company Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E071 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3308 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a lawyer's claim for unpaid fees after he failed to prove the client actually hired him.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in dismissing the advocate/client bill of costs for want of instructions
The taxing officer did not err in principle; the documents exhibited showed no contact or correspondence from the client to the advocate and the parties met only once when introduced by a bank, so no retainer was proved
The retainer is synonymous with instructions, engagement or employment. Since the retainer was disputed, the advocate bore the burden of proving engagement. The exhibited documents - a draft sale agreement from the vendor's advocates, an official search, demand correspondence and correspondence with third parties - disclosed no instructions from the client. Precedent confirms that absent proof of an advocate-client relationship the taxing officer has no jurisdiction to tax a bill. A party cannot approbate and reprobate by relying on an affidavit it says was incompetent.
Competency of the replying affidavit deponed by counsel for the client
The affidavit was partially competent, but the point failed because the advocate itself relied on paragraph 6 of the same affidavit
Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Rule 8 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules permit counsel to depose to formal or non-contentious matters of fact. Some paragraphs of the affidavit were competent and others were not. However, the advocate, while challenging the affidavit, relied on paragraph 6 of the very affidavit to support its claim of instructions, which was impermissible approbate and reprobate.
Whether an advocate introduced to a client by a bank must verify the retainer
An advocate so introduced must exercise due caution and make reasonable inquiries to establish that it possesses and accepts clear instructions
Rules 5(2) and (3) of the Advocates (Practice) Rules bar an advocate from acting for a client introduced through solicitation and impose a duty of reasonable inquiry before accepting instructions. An advocate introduced to a client by a bank is expected to conduct inquiries to determine whether the introduction constituted solicitation and whether clear instructions were given and accepted.
Legal principles established
#- A court should refrain from interfering with a taxing officer's decision unless it is shown the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was so obviously excessive as to indicate a mistake of principle
- The retainer is synonymous with employment, engagement or instruction; where the retainer is disputed, the burden lies on the advocate to prove the advocate-client relationship
Court orders
#- 1.The chamber summons dated 15 July 2025 is dismissed with costs
- 2.Costs are awarded to the client
- 3.The file is effectively marked as closed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014; Order 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mulondo & Company Advocates LLP v Huming PVC Company Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E071 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3308 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 15 July 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3308/eng@2026-06-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.