Nairobi City County v Kenya Local Government Workers Union & another; Kenya County Government Workers Union (Client); Leonard K.Mbuvi t/a Katunga Mbuvi & Co. Advocates (Advocate) (Miscellaneous Application E208 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 744 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered a workers' union to pay its former lawyer KSh 2.2 million in legal fees after failing to prove it had already paid KSh 3.1 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Res judicata of the reference
The reference is not res judicata because it arises from the taxation order of 30th June 2023, not the earlier order of 31st May 2022 which was set aside and remitted
The earlier reference concerned the first taxation which was set aside and remitted to another Taxing Master. The impugned decision flowed from the fresh taxation. Although filed in a closed file, the reference raised distinct issues from a distinct taxation order.
Increase of instruction fees from base Ksh. 6,300.00 to Ksh. 1,200,000.00
No error of principle; the Taxing Master correctly applied Schedule VI rule 1(i) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and justified the upscaling by the high stakes: an added annual budget of Ksh. 10,419,936 and the jobs of approximately 25,000 employees
Where the subject matter value is not ascertainable from pleadings or judgment, the Taxing Master may use discretion guided by complexity, importance, interest of parties and conduct of proceedings. Having given a plausible basis for the increment, the award stands unless manifestly excessive without justification.
Credit for Ksh. 3,100,000.00 alleged fees payment
No error of principle; no evidence tied the payment to Cause No. 1410 of 2013, and the Client's conflicting affidavits (Ksh. 1,000,000 vs Ksh. 3,100,000) undermined the claim
Roba Duba swore two affidavits with inconsistent figures, and the receipt of 16th May 2014 did not show the payment related to Cause No. 1410 of 2013. The Client had entrusted the Advocate with many matters, so apportionment to the specific file was unsupported.
Entry of judgment on the Certificate of Costs
Judgment entered for the Advocate in the sum of Ksh. 2,205,638.00 with interest, the reference having failed
Since the reference attacking the taxation order was dismissed, the obstacle to the Advocate's application dated 20th July 2023 fell away and judgment was entered in terms of the Certificate of Costs issued on 18th July 2023.
Legal principles established
#- A Judge on reference may not interfere with a Taxing Master's decision unless an error of principle is apparent
- Where the Taxing Master has justified an increase in the base instruction fee, the reference court should be hesitant to interfere even if it would have awarded a different figure
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is dismissed
- 2.The Advocate's application dated 20th July 2023 is allowed and judgment entered for the Advocate against the Client in the sum of Ksh. 2,205,638.00 in terms of the Certificate of Costs issued on 18th July 2023
- 3.The Client to pay the Advocate interest on the decretal amount at court rates from the date of the order
- 4.Costs of the two applications granted to the Advocate
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a Taxing Master's taxation order under the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2009 (ELRC forum)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nairobi City County v Kenya Local Government Workers Union & another; Kenya County Government Workers Union (Client); Leonard K.Mbuvi t/a Katunga Mbuvi & Co. Advocates (Advocate) (Miscellaneous Application E208 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 744 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Reference from Taxation arising from Cause No. 1410 of 2013 (with Advocate's application dated 20th July 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/744/eng@2024-04-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.