Kirui t/a Cheruiyot Kirui & Company Advocates v Limo & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E034 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 340 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a lawyer to tax legal fees against a client's estate because an unsigned retainer agreement and unproven payment claims could not stop the claim.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant's Notice of Motion dated 31st October 2025 seeking leave to tax the client bill of costs is meritorious
- 2.Whether a retainer agreement existed between the applicant and the respondents barring the taxation claim
- 3.Whether the pendency of Eldoret ELCA No. E062 of 2025 or an alleged payment of Kshs 59,000/- defeats the application
Key legal issues
#Whether an advocate who has completed the work may pursue taxation of a client bill of costs despite an alleged unsigned retainer agreement
Yes; the alleged retainer (BKL 1) was signed only by the respondents and not by the applicant, so it was not a bar to the taxation application
The court accepted the Court of Appeal position in Omulele & Tollo on proof of retainer and the Gichuki Kingara principle that a retainer lasts until completion of the work. Since the work in the underlying suit was completed, the applicant became entitled to tax the bill. The respondents failed to prove the alleged agreement or payment because the documents referred to (BKL 1 and BKL 2) were either not produced or unsigned by the applicant.
Whether the respondents discharged their burden of proving payment of legal fees and the pendency of an appeal
No; the respondents did not avail the documents relied upon to prove their allegations
The respondents asserted that they paid Kshs 59,000/- in legal fees and that a related appeal was pending (Eldoret ELCA No. E062 of 2025), but failed to annex or avail the document (BKL 2) referred to in their replying affidavit. The court applied sections 107 to 112 of the Civil Procedure Act on the burden of proof and found the assertions unproven.
Legal principles established
#- A retainer agreement lasts until the work is done, and an advocate should complete the work and then tax the bill of costs
- The rationale for taxing costs at the end of the trial is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings in the form of taxation which may lead to references
Court orders
#- 1.That the firm of Cheruiyot Kirui & Company Advocates be allowed to tax their client bill of costs in Kapsabet ELC No. E004 of 2023 Jane Jepkemboi & Bethwell Kibichii Limo v Julius Kipkemboi (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Kibet Arap Ngisirei – Deceased) as per the annexed Bill
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction to order taxation of an advocate-client bill of costs under sections 45, 46 and 47(1) of the Advocates Act (invoked by the applicant)
Relief refused
#Costs of the application paid by the Respondent
The court allowed only the principal order and made no order for costs against the respondent, instead ordering costs in the cause
Costs
Costs in the cause
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Accordingly, the application is merited and the same is hereby allowed in terms of the principal order as stated in paragraph 1 (a) hereinabove with costs in the cause.
since the retainer lasts until the work is done, then the respondent should patiently do the work to its completion and then tax the bill of costs
It is thus, my considered view that since there was completion of work for the respondents, the applicant is entitled to pursue the taxation of costs as sought in the application.
the alleged retainer (BKL 1) duly signed by the Respondents was not signed by the applicant hence, not a bar to the applicant from seeking the principal order in the application.
Issues in the judgment
#The respondent is named in the bill as 'Julius Kipkemboi' but the introduction refers to 'the Respondent' in the singular while the record elsewhere refers to plural respondents (Jane Jepkemboi & Bethwell Kibichii Limo); the caption in the annexed order is inconsistent with the parties before the court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kirui t/a Cheruiyot Kirui & Company Advocates v Limo & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E034 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 340 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 31st October 2025 (in Kapsabet ELC No. E004 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/340/eng@2026-01-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.