Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 2231 (KLR)

Mwita & Company Advocates v Langat (Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2231 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 July 2025
JRJAMES RIKA
519 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to let a client pay legal fees in instalments, ordering him to pay the freshly taxed Kshs. 336,450 immediately or face execution.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent/Client filed an application dated 25th July 2025 seeking to liquidate a decretal sum of Kshs. 336,450 taxed in favour of the Applicant/Advocate by monthly instalments of Kshs. 50,000, and to stay execution of the decree pending settlement. The Advocate had declined the instalment proposal and threatened execution within three days. The Court noted the procedural history: the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs was initially taxed at Kshs. 2,413,520; the Client filed a reference contending the amount was manifestly excessive; and in a ruling dated 30th April 2025 the Court agreed, directing a fresh taxation, which yielded the markedly lower sum of Kshs. 336,450. The Court held that instead of paying the freshly taxed sum and freeing himself from obligation to his former Advocate, the Client had returned to Court to prolong the dispute. It found the application unreasonable and not fit to be entertained, observing that the initial Bill was taxed the previous year, so the Client should have organised his finances and should honour his obligation to pay fair value for professional services as ascertained in the fresh taxation. The application was declined with no order as to costs; the Client was directed to pay the freshly taxed sum forthwith, in default of which execution would proceed, and upon payment the file was to be placed before the Deputy Registrar, Kericho, for closure. Judgment delivered electronically at Kericho on 28th July 2025 by James Rika, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether instalment payment and stay of execution should be granted against a freshly taxed Advocate-Client decree

Holding

The application was declined; the Client was ordered to pay the freshly taxed sum of Kshs. 336,450 forthwith, failing which execution to proceed

Reasoning

The Bill was initially taxed at Kshs. 2,413,520 but reduced on a successful reference to Kshs. 336,450. The Court held that the Client, having already obtained a substantial reduction, was merely prolonging the dispute. He had known of his indebtedness since the initial taxation the previous year and should have organised his finances. The Court found no merit in the instalment proposal and refused to entertain it.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A client who has had an Advocate-Client Bill taxed afresh must honour the obligation to pay the freshly ascertained fair value for professional services, and will not be indulged with instalment orders to prolong the dispute

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application filed by the Respondent/Client, dated 25th July 2025, is declined
  2. 2.No order on the costs
  3. 3.A copy of the ruling be availed to both parties
  4. 4.The file shall, upon settlement of the decree, be placed before the Deputy Registrar for closure
Jurisdiction invoked
Original supervisory jurisdiction over taxation of Advocate-Client Bill of Costs and incidental applications; no specific constitutional or statutory provision cited

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mwita & Company Advocates v Langat (Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2231 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2231/eng@2025-07-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.