Kogai & Company Advocates v Aura (Miscellaneous Civil Application E126 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1261 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court reduced an advocate's legal fees bill after finding the Taxing Master ignored payments the client had already made, and barred double billing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Error of principle in failing to consider payments made to the Advocate
The Taxing Master committed an error of principle by not interrogating the Client's claim that the Advocate was holding Ksh. 442,000.00 for which he demanded credit
The Client had raised the payment issue in submissions dated 31st July 2024, yet the taxation ruling never addressed it. Failure to consider a material relevant factor — money paid to the Advocate for the work, which the proviso to clause 1 of Schedule 6 requires the taxing officer to take into account — constituted an error of principle affecting the quantum of the Advocate-Client costs.
Whether consultation meetings and the demand letter were separately billable
Taking instructions and correspondence are covered under the Party and Party Bill of Costs and cannot be separately billed at the Advocate-Client stage
Clause 6 of Part A of Schedule 6 covers correspondence, including the letter before action, and 'taking instructions' includes conferencing with the client and briefing meetings. These are factored into instructions fees in the Party and Party Bill, from which Advocate-Client costs are derived. Billing them separately at the Advocate-Client stage constitutes double billing.
Quantum of credit due to the Client
Of the Ksh. 380,000.00 conceded as received/held, only Ksh. 13,200.00 related to work outside ELRC Cause 280 of 2019, leaving Ksh. 366,800.00 as fees already received
The court identified the company search (Ksh. 3,200.00) and tax returns processing (Ksh. 10,000.00) as work distinct from the suit, so those sums could not be credited against fees in that suit. The remaining Ksh. 366,800.00 was deducted from the taxed fees of Ksh. 664,081.00, leaving a balance of Ksh. 297,281.00, plus 16% VAT of Ksh. 47,565.00, totalling Ksh. 344,846.00.
Legal principles established
#- A court should not interfere with a taxation order of a Taxing Master unless an error of principle is demonstrated; manifest excessiveness may evidence such an error
- Items covered by the Party and Party Bill of Costs (correspondence, taking of instructions, disbursements) cannot be separately billed in the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs as that would amount to double billing
Court orders
#- 1.The Client is directed to pay the Advocate Ksh. 344,846.00 being the balance of legal fees and Value Added Tax
- 2.The Taxation Order issued on 10th September 2024 is adjusted accordingly
- 3.Each party to bear own costs of the reference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against the Taxing Master's taxation order under the Advocates Act framework (Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014), Schedule 6
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kogai & Company Advocates v Aura (Miscellaneous Civil Application E126 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1261 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause No. 280 of 2019 (Reference). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1261/eng@2025-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.