In the Matter of Advocate/Client Bill of Costs - Kipkorir, Tito & Kiara Advocates v Maniatta Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court blocked a law firm from collecting Kshs 609,350 in legal fees until a different taxing officer first decides whether a client-lawyer relationship actually existed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether judgment should be entered on the certificate of taxation
No - premature because the retainer is expressly disputed and a chamber summons challenging the ruling is pending
Section 51(2) permits judgment on a certificate where the retainer is not disputed. Here the Respondent expressly disputed the retainer via a preliminary objection and a chamber summons. Since the retainer dispute goes to entitlement to costs, entering judgment before determining the chamber summons would be premature.
Whether the Taxing Officer's ruling dismissing the preliminary objection should be set aside
Yes - the failure to give reasons for dismissing the objection was an error of principle warranting intervention
A judge will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's discretion absent an error of principle. The Taxing Officer dismissed the retainer objection without giving reasons, making it impossible to ascertain whether the evidence was considered. The absence of reasons is central to the taxation and constitutes an error of principle justifying the Court's intervention.
Whether there existed a retainer between the parties
Not determined - remitted to a different Taxing Officer for a reasoned determination
The retainer question goes to the foundation of the advocate's entitlement to present an advocate/client bill. Without the Taxing Officer's reasoning, this Court would have to determine the factual issue in the first instance, which would be inappropriate. The proper remedy is remission for a reasoned determination.
Whether the reference was filed out of time under paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
The limitation objection could not be sustained without first considering whether reasons for the ruling were furnished
Paragraph 11(1) requires notice of objection within fourteen days; under paragraph 11(2) reasons must be recorded and forwarded, and the objector then has 14 days from receipt of reasons to apply to a Judge. If no reasons were furnished, the Court must consider the effect of that omission before holding the period expired.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of taxation is final as to the amount of costs unless set aside or altered by the Court
- A judge on a reference will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's discretion absent an error of principle
- A judicial or quasi-judicial authority must give reasons for its decisions
Court orders
#- 1.The decision of the Taxing Officer contained in the ruling dated 11th September 2025 dismissing the Respondent's preliminary objection is hereby set aside
- 2.The issue of whether there existed a retainer between the Applicant and the Respondent is hereby remitted to a different Taxing Officer for hearing and determination
- 3.The Notice of Motion dated 4th March 2026 is hereby held in abeyance pending the determination of the issue of retainer
- 4.Costs shall abide the outcome of the matter
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "In the Matter of Advocate/Client Bill of Costs - Kipkorir, Tito & Kiara Advocates v Maniatta Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELC L MISC NO. E205 OF 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6011/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.