Mwita & Company Advocates v Langat (Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2231 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to let a client pay legal fees in instalments, ordering him to pay the freshly taxed Kshs. 336,450 immediately or face execution.
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 Respondent/Client should be allowed to liquidate the freshly taxed decretal sum of Kshs. 336,450 by monthly instalments of Kshs. 50,000
- 2.Whether execution of the decree should be stayed pending the proposed instalment settlement
Key legal issues
#Whether instalment payment and stay of execution should be granted against a freshly taxed Advocate-Client decree
The application was declined; the Client was ordered to pay the freshly taxed sum of Kshs. 336,450 forthwith, failing which execution to proceed
The Bill was initially taxed at Kshs. 2,413,520 but reduced on a successful reference to Kshs. 336,450. The Court held that the Client, having already obtained a substantial reduction, was merely prolonging the dispute. He had known of his indebtedness since the initial taxation the previous year and should have organised his finances. The Court found no merit in the instalment proposal and refused to entertain it.
Legal principles established
#- A client who has had an Advocate-Client Bill taxed afresh must honour the obligation to pay the freshly ascertained fair value for professional services, and will not be indulged with instalment orders to prolong the dispute
Court orders
#- 1.The application filed by the Respondent/Client, dated 25th July 2025, is declined
- 2.No order on the costs
- 3.A copy of the ruling be availed to both parties
- 4.The file shall, upon settlement of the decree, be placed before the Deputy Registrar for closure
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original supervisory jurisdiction over taxation of Advocate-Client Bill of Costs and incidental applications; no specific constitutional or statutory provision cited
Relief refused
#Leave to liquidate the decretal sum of Kshs. 336,450 by monthly instalments of Kshs. 50,000
The Court found the application unreasonable, the Client having already succeeded in having the Bill taxed afresh yet returning to prolong the dispute, and ought to have organised his finances since the initial taxation
Stay of execution of the decree pending hearing and settlement by instalments
Refused alongside the instalment prayer; the Client was ordered to pay the freshly taxed sum forthwith, in default execution to proceed
Costs
No order on the costs
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.
The application is not reasonable, and the Court is of the view that it ought not to be entertained.
He should honour his obligation to his former Advocate, for professional services rendered, and pay the former Advocate fair value for those services, that value having been ascertained in the fresh taxation.
The application filed by the Respondent/ Client, dated 25th July 2025 is declined.
The Respondent/ Client shall forthwith, pay the sum that has freshly been taxed, in default, execution to proceed.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not disclose the case number, the parties' names, or the cause number of the underlying bill of costs and reference
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwita & Company Advocates v Langat (Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2231 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2231/eng@2025-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.