M/S Mwita & Company Advocates v Langat (Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1202 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cut down a Kshs. 2.4 million legal fees bill for a settled employment dispute, ruling complexity must be proven from facts, not a lawyer's reputation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Judicious exercise of the Taxing Officer's discretion on instruction fees in a constitutional petition
The Taxing Master failed to exercise discretion judiciously; instruction fees of Kshs. 1.5 million were manifestly excessive for a routine employment dispute settled within a month.
The Petition was a routine termination-of-employment dispute, in court for only a month and settled by consent. The ruling never stated that the Petition was complex, of public interest, or that the petitioner was an important person. The Taxing Master also appears to have disregarded Paragraph 1(b)(j) of Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, which prescribes minimums of Kshs. 45,000 or Kshs. 100,000 depending on complexity.
Entitlement to getting-up fees where the matter was not confirmed for hearing
Getting-up fees were not merited because the Petition was never confirmed for hearing.
Although a Response was filed and issues were joined, the Petition was settled by consent a month after filing, was not confirmed for hearing, and no witnesses had been prepared. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 6A bars getting-up fees until the case is confirmed for hearing, and the Advocate could not establish confirmation.
Retainer versus retainer agreement
A retainer existed but no retainer agreement; the Kshs. 250,000 paid was a deposit, not the totality of agreed fees.
The Advocate distinguished retainer from retainer agreement, relying on Omulele & Tollo Advocates v Mount Holdings Limited. The Court noted the ruling did not address the submissions on retainer or the Kshs. 250,000 payment, contributing to the finding that discretion was not judiciously exercised.
Legal principles established
#- Complexity of a matter must be shown from the facts and applicable law, not from the number or reputation of advocates engaged
- No fee for getting up is allowable until a case has been confirmed for hearing
- A taxing officer's award that is manifestly excessive as to occasion injustice warrants interference on reference
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is allowed
- 2.The Advocate-Client Bill of Costs shall be taxed afresh before another Taxing Oficer
- 3.No order on the costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a Taxing Officer's ruling on an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs under the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "M/S Mwita & Company Advocates v Langat (Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1202 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kericho E&LRC Reference dated 4th December 2024 (arising from Kericho E&LRC Petition No. E002 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1202/eng@2025-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.