Muite (SC) v Diesel Care Limited (Miscellaneous Application E053 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2121 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed advocates can bill clients even without a written retainer, where instructions can be inferred from how the parties actually behaved.
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 taxing master erred in law and principle as to justify interference with the decision of the Taxing Officer's ruling dated 11th July 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether there existed an advocate-client relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent
Yes - a retainer may be implied from the conduct of the parties; instructions from the client's advocates as agents constituted instructions on behalf of the client.
The court perused correspondence between the Respondent's advocates, Kibera Maina & Co Advocates, and the Applicant, including a letter dated 6th March 2023 forwarding pleadings and a request that the Applicant lead in the matter at the Supreme Court. The court held that 'lead' implied instructions to act on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent never objected to the Applicant's involvement, and counsel on record could not have engaged another advocate on such an important matter without the client's knowledge. The conduct of both the advocates (as agents) and the Respondent established a retainer even though it was not in writing.
Whether the taxing master's decision was based on an error of principle warranting interference
Yes - the taxing master erred in law and principle by disregarding the law on implied retainers and by treating the instructions as not given.
The court applied the principle that a court will not interfere with a taxing officer's decision unless it is based on an error of principle or the award is manifestly excessive or low. Taking into account irrelevant factors or omitting relevant ones is an error of principle. The taxing master relied on the correspondence but misdirected herself in finding that instructions came only from the advocates and not the Respondent, and in ignoring the doctrine of implied retainer. Accordingly her ruling was set aside and the bill remitted for fresh taxation.
Legal principles established
#- A retainer agreement between an advocate and client need not be in writing; it may be implied from the conduct of the parties.
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling of the taxing master dated 11th July 2025 is hereby set aside
- 2.The bill of costs dated 14th March 2024 to be remitted back for fresh taxation by a different taxing officer
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
- 4.The ruling rendered in this matter is hereby to apply to Miscellaneous Civil Application E054 OF 2024, Miscellaneous Civil Application E055 OF 2024 and Miscellaneous Application E056 OF 2024
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference/review against a Taxing Officer's ruling under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act (referenced in the grounds)
- Consolidated with
- Miscellaneous Civil Application E054 OF 2024, Miscellaneous Civil Application E055 OF 2024, Miscellaneous Application E056 OF 2024
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.
In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that the taxing master erred in law and principle in her ruling dated 11th July 2025 and hereby make the following orders
The ruling of the taxing master dated 11th July 2025 is hereby set aside
The bill of costs dated 14th March 2024 to be remitted back for fresh taxation by a difierent taxing oficer.
Each party to bear their own costs.
The ruling rendered in this matter is hereby to apply to Miscellaneous Civil Application E054 OF 2024, Miscellaneous Civil Application E055 OF 2024 and Miscellaneous Application E056 OF 2024.
Even if there has been no written retainer, the court may imply the existence of a retainer from the acts of the parties in the particular case
Issues in the judgment
#Date typo in the grounds of review referring to the ruling
Inconsistent case numbers cited for the Supreme Court matter in the grounds
Date of the applicant's submissions appears to postdate the filing date context ('submissions dated 6th February 2026')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muite (SC) v Diesel Care Limited (Miscellaneous Application E053 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2121 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLMISC E053 OF 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2121/eng@2026-04-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.