Advocate (Applicant) v Insurance Company (Respondent) - Preliminary Objection to Bill of Costs re Gatundu SPMCC No. 200 of 2005
The bottom line
#Filing a bill for legal fees must happen within six years of the work ending, regardless of ongoing general retainer status.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Commencement of limitation for advocate's costs
Time runs from termination of the action (entry of judgment where no appeal) or lawful ending of the retainer, not from delivery of the bill
Adopting Halsbury's Laws (4th Ed, Vol 28, para 879), the court held that for continuous solicitor's work such as defending an action, limitation begins on termination of the action or retainer. Judgment was delivered in 2006; the bill came in 2017, well beyond six years.
Effect of the alleged 2010 consent freezing legal fees
Even assuming parties could suspend statutory time by consent for the stated one year, the bill still fell outside the limitation period
The court noted the consent (latest communication dated 17th May 2010) came about four years after judgment. It expressed doubt whether parties can suspend effluxion of statutory time, but even excluding the one-year freeze the 2017 filing remained time barred.
Ongoing general retainer as an answer to limitation
Continued listing on the client's panel of advocates is irrelevant; the reference point is the specific suit's bill of costs
The court held the Applicant could not rely on the general retainer because the bill related only to Gatundu Civil Case No. 200 of 2005. Following Abincha & Co. Advocates v Trident Insurance Co. Ltd, the bill filed over six years after completion of that work is statute barred.
Whether the preliminary objection raised a pure point of law
Yes - time bar under the Limitation of Actions Act is a pure point of law sustaining a preliminary objection
The Respondents argued, per Mukisa Biscuits, that the objection raised the pure point of law that the bill was time barred. The court's upholding of the objection on the statute alone confirms it was disposed of as a point of law without evidence.
Legal principles established
#- A bill of costs filed more than six years after completion of the work an advocate was retained to do, or after termination of the retainer in respect of such work, is statute barred under Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act
- Where judgment has been given in the action and there is no appeal, limitation time runs from the judgment, and continued presence on a client's general panel of advocates does not keep a claim for costs in that specific suit alive
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection is upheld
- 2.The Bill of Costs filed on 20th April 2017 is found to be time barred
- 3.Costs of the preliminary objection awarded to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction over taxation of advocate-client Bill of Costs; preliminary objection under Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution raised
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Advocate (Applicant) v Insurance Company (Respondent) - Preliminary Objection to Bill of Costs re Gatundu SPMCC No. 200 of 2005", Case Analysis (2019). . Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.