SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

M/S Mwita & Company Advocates v Langat (Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1202 (KLR) (30 April 2025) (Ruling)

[2025] KEELRC 1202 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1202
Citation
[2025] KEELRC 1202 (KLR)
Decided
30 April 2025
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureRespondent dissatisfied with costs assessment and seeks a new rulingCoramJAMES RIKA
The costs awarded to the Advocate were manifestly excessive and the Petition was not complex or opposed

Facts

Respondent was the Vice-Chancellor of Kenya Highlands University who challenged a decision to send him on leave. The case was settled out of court after a month, and the Respondent paid Kshs. 250,000 as retainer fees.

Issues

  • assessment of costs
  • retainer agreement
  • complexity of the matter

Reasoning

The Court found the costs excessive due to the short duration of the Petition and the lack of complexity, and ordered a new ruling on the costs

Outcome

Reference allowed, costs reassessed

Orders

  • Advocate-Client Bill of Costs shall be taxed afresh before another Taxing Officer
  • No order on the costs

Remedies

  • New costs assessment

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Advocates Remuneration Order
Cases cited (2)
  • First American Bank of Kenya Limited v Shah & Others [2002] E.A 64
  • Republic v Minister for Agriculture ex parte Samuel Muchiri W’ Njuguna [2006] e-KLR
⚠ 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.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case