Balala & Abed Advocates v Bajaber (Miscellaneous Application E193 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 1848 (KLR) (12 July 2024) (Ruling)
- Court
- Employment & Labour Relations Court
- Case number
- 1848
- Citation
- [2024] KEELRC 1848 (KLR)
- Decided
- 12 July 2024
Summary at a glance
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureAppeal from a taxation rulingCoramNJ ABUODHA
The court held that the taxing master had jurisdiction and the fee agreement was not binding as it was not in writing and signed by the client.
Facts
The client, Taib Abdulhadi Sheikhahmed Taib Bajaber, filed a reference against Balala & Abed Advocates, alleging that the taxing master lacked jurisdiction to tax the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs due to a binding fee agreement.
Issues
- Jurisdiction of the taxing master
- Validity of the fee agreement
Reasoning
The court ruled that the fee agreement was not valid because it was not in writing and signed by the client, and the taxing master's ruling was not based on an invalid agreement.
Outcome
The court dismissed the application and upheld the taxing master's ruling.
Orders
- To vacate the entire taxation ruling
- To strike out the Advocate-Client bill of costs
- To order no additional fee is owed to the advocate
- To order refund of unutilised portion of fees already paid
- To award costs of the reference and taxation proceedings
Authorities cited
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Loading judgment…