Patrick Kimathi Muchena t/a Arimi Kimathi & Co. Advocates v Evans Ithiria
The bottom line
#Winning a procedural battle in court does not guarantee success; you must still prove you performed the legal work you are billing for.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the advocate provided legal service to Evans to justify the advocate/client bill of costs
No legal service was provided; the taxing master's dismissal of the bill of costs was correct and the chamber summons failed.
The court reconsidered the documents before the taxing master. The advocate wrote only one letter to the vendor's lawyers, did not witness the sale agreement, was unaware of the Deed of Variation substituting House No. 15 for House No. 6, and received no fee, Evans having paid Ksh 93,750 to N.K. Mugo & Co. Advocates.
Whether the advocate complied with the time-lines in paragraph 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
On prima facie basis the advocate complied: his letter of 29th January 2019 requesting the taxing master's reasons was filed within fourteen days, and the chamber summons was filed within the paragraph 11(2) period.
The letter requesting reasons, bearing a court stamp of 31st January 2019, was not in the court file when the earlier ruling was delivered. Accepting it prima facie, the court found the conditions of paragraph 11(1) and (2) met and granted review of the striking-out ruling.
Legal principles established
#- A retainer need not be written; it can be oral or inferred from conduct, but where the only evidence of retainer is the advocate's statement which the client contradicts, the advocate is treated as acting without authority.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 26th November 2019 succeeds; the court reviews and sets aside the Ruling of 6th November 2019 and the chamber summons dated 23rd May 2019 is reinstated
- 2.No costs on the Notice of Motion dated 26th November 2019
- 3.The Chamber Summons dated 23rd May 2019 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; review jurisdiction over the court's own ruling
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Patrick Kimathi Muchena t/a Arimi Kimathi & Co. Advocates v Evans Ithiria", Case Analysis (2020). . Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.