Mulondo & Company Advocates LLP v Huming PVC Company Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E071 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3308 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a lawyer's claim for unpaid fees after he failed to prove the client actually hired him.
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 court should interfere with the taxing officer's decision
- 2.Whether the replying affidavit sworn by counsel Mr. Joseph Njenga Kiarie on 2 April 2025 was competent
Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in dismissing the advocate/client bill of costs for want of instructions
The taxing officer did not err in principle; the documents exhibited showed no contact or correspondence from the client to the advocate and the parties met only once when introduced by a bank, so no retainer was proved
The retainer is synonymous with instructions, engagement or employment. Since the retainer was disputed, the advocate bore the burden of proving engagement. The exhibited documents - a draft sale agreement from the vendor's advocates, an official search, demand correspondence and correspondence with third parties - disclosed no instructions from the client. Precedent confirms that absent proof of an advocate-client relationship the taxing officer has no jurisdiction to tax a bill. A party cannot approbate and reprobate by relying on an affidavit it says was incompetent.
Competency of the replying affidavit deponed by counsel for the client
The affidavit was partially competent, but the point failed because the advocate itself relied on paragraph 6 of the same affidavit
Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Rule 8 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules permit counsel to depose to formal or non-contentious matters of fact. Some paragraphs of the affidavit were competent and others were not. However, the advocate, while challenging the affidavit, relied on paragraph 6 of the very affidavit to support its claim of instructions, which was impermissible approbate and reprobate.
Whether an advocate introduced to a client by a bank must verify the retainer
An advocate so introduced must exercise due caution and make reasonable inquiries to establish that it possesses and accepts clear instructions
Rules 5(2) and (3) of the Advocates (Practice) Rules bar an advocate from acting for a client introduced through solicitation and impose a duty of reasonable inquiry before accepting instructions. An advocate introduced to a client by a bank is expected to conduct inquiries to determine whether the introduction constituted solicitation and whether clear instructions were given and accepted.
Legal principles established
#- A court should refrain from interfering with a taxing officer's decision unless it is shown the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was so obviously excessive as to indicate a mistake of principle
- The retainer is synonymous with employment, engagement or instruction; where the retainer is disputed, the burden lies on the advocate to prove the advocate-client relationship
Court orders
#- 1.The chamber summons dated 15 July 2025 is dismissed with costs
- 2.Costs are awarded to the client
- 3.The file is effectively marked as closed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014; Order 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the taxing officer's decision of 25 June 2025 and referral/re-taxation of the bill of costs dated 13 January 2025
The taxing officer did not err in principle in finding that the advocate was not retained for want of instructions; the advocate failed to discharge the burden of proving an advocate-client relationship
Costs
Costs awarded to the client
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.
a court should refrain from intervening in decisions made by the taxing oficer concerning taxation unless it can be demonstrated that the decision was based on an error of principle or that the fee awarded was so obviously excessive as to indicate a mistake of principle
The nexus between the advocate and his or her client is the advocate/client relationship which springs from instructions by the client to the advocate. Absent such relationship, the Taxing Oficer would be bereft of jurisdiction to tax a bill
it is impermissible for the advocate to approbate and reprobate. This court need not say more, as the advocate's argument fails
Consequently, guided by the law and judicial precedent, this court finds that the learned trial magistrate did not err in principle on matters of law or fact in dismissing the bill of costs for want of instructions. It finds that the chamber summons dated 15 July 2025 is not merited. It is dismissed with costs. Costs are awarded to the client.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the taxing officer as 'the learned trial magistrate' in the concluding orders, whereas the taxing officer is elsewhere described as a taxing officer rendering an impugned ruling before the High Court reference
Date discrepancy: paragraph 2 lists the supporting affidavit as deposed 21 July 2025, and the replying affidavit as deposed 28 October 2025, while the replying affidavit is elsewhere said to have been sworn on 2 April 2025
The court states the client 'was later satisfied that the ruling contained suficient reasons and lodged the reference', although it was the advocate, not the client, that lodged the reference
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mulondo & Company Advocates LLP v Huming PVC Company Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E071 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3308 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 15 July 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3308/eng@2026-06-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.