Chepkwony & Associates Advocates v Cathmed Limited (Miscellaneous Application E010 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1943 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court dismissed an advocate's fee challenge because contradictory dates made the court record unreliable, confirming that written fee agreements are mandatory.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of an oral fee agreement under section 45 of the Advocates Act
The applicant argued (and the authorities cited support) that a fee agreement under section 45 must be in writing; absent a written agreement the Advocates Remuneration Order scale fees apply. However, the court did not reach the merits.
The applicant relied on Ahmednasir Abdikadir & Company Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Ltd and Kkuta Maimai Hamisi Peris Pesi Tobiko v IEBC to submit that a section 45 agreement must be written and signed by the client. The respondent countered that the parties agreed the fees paid settled the matter, relying on Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority. The court found the record so inconsistent that the reference could not be determined on its merits.
Effect of irreconcilable dates and inconsistencies on the face of the record
The dates in the record were internally contradictory - the Notice of Change of Advocates was said to be dated 22 July 2023, filed 17 December 2024, yet served 31 July 2024 and received 13 December 2024, and a ruling was delivered on events said to occur after it. The application was therefore dismissed.
The court catalogued the contradictions: the Notice of Change of Advocates could not have been served before it was filed, and the ruling of 10 December 2024 related to events 'not yet achieved'. The demand letter and bill of costs likewise contained chronologically impossible dates. The court held that such errors 'should be rare' in matters arising from professional attendance, and Article 159 could not salvage the application.
Legal principles established
#- A valid agreement fixing an advocate's remuneration under section 45(1) of the Advocates Act must be in writing and signed by the client
- A reference from taxation cannot be sustained where the record itself contains material inconsistencies; procedural latitude cannot cure an incoherent record
- Instructions to an advocate cannot logically post-date the filing of documents in court on the strength of those instructions
Court orders
#- 1.Parties shall revert to the trial court and address the matter
- 2.The instant application is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Deputy Registrar
- Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 1 August 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 47, 50 and 159 of the Constitution; Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chepkwony & Associates Advocates v Cathmed Limited (Miscellaneous Application E010 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1943 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 13 December 2024 (Advocate-Client Reference). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1943/eng@2025-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.