Former chief of staff at Deputy President William Ruto’s office, Ms Marianne Kitany, has been ordered to pay a city law firm Sh1 million in legal fees.
A Nairobi court directed Ms Kitany to pay the sum to Triple A Law LLP for filing a case against her estranged husband, Meru Senator Mithika Linturi.
Ms Kitany was opposed to the demands, saying she had not given the firm any written, oral or implied instructions to file the suit, which was lodged at the Milimani Law Courts in 2018.
She said she only learnt that the advocates had filed the suit when they sent her a fee note for the matter.
The advocates were demanding Sh4,651,926, but the amount was reviewed downwards to Sh1,171,926 by the deputy registrar.
The law firm then started the process of enforcing payment of the taxed amount (Sh1,171,926), but Ms Kitany insisted she did not owe it any money, arguing that she had not instructed them to file the case.
In her objection, Ms Kitany had urged Justice David Majanja to find that the advocates had failed to prove that she had given them instructions to file the suit.
But the judge held that, according to section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, once a Certificate of Costs is issued, it is final and conclusive.
“Although the client disputes the retainer, that issue has been determined by the deputy registrar.
It can only be reviewed by filing a reference and since no reference has been filed, the Certificate of Costs is now final and conclusive within the meaning of section 51(2) of the Advocates Act,” said Justice Majanja.
The judge held that the dispute was not open as it had been handled by the deputy registrar when taxing the advocates’ bill of costs.
The judge said by the time the deputy registrar was taxing the legal fee from Sh4 million to Sh1 million, he or she had determined whether there was a retainer agreement between the advocates and the client.
He noted that the registrar had, on September 3, 2019, dismissed Ms Kitany’s contention that the advocates acted without instructions.
“Once the deputy registrar made this determination, the party aggrieved by the decision has the right to file a reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
In this case, the client failed to file a reference within the time prescribed, hence the decision of the deputy registrar on this issue is final,” said Justice Majanja.
He ruled that the decision of the registrar (taxing master) cannot be reviewed through the backdoor as a response to an application for judgment on the certificate of costs.
In defence of their demands, the advocates submitted that under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the Certificate of Costs is conclusive.
They added that a client, having failed to file a reference on the issue of a retainer, cannot contest the same at the stage when an advocate is seeking a judgment to be entered as certified by the deputy registrar.
