The relationship between an advocate and a client is founded on trust, professionalism, and clear communication, especially regarding legal fees. In Tanzania, disputes over advocates’ remuneration have attracted public attention due to concerns about transparency, fairness, and the enforceability of fee arrangements made outside formal written agreements. Many clients enter legal representation agreements with their advocate based on verbal understandings without fully appreciating the legal consequences that may arise if disagreements occur later.
This situation has raised an important legal question in Tanzanian law: whether an oral agreement on legal fees between an advocate and a client is legally enforceable. The issue is significant because legal fees directly affect access to justice, professional ethics, and the protection of both advocates and clients. While advocates are entitled to reasonable remuneration for services rendered, clients also require certainty and protection against arbitrary or excessive claims.
In the case of Advocate Reagan Charles vs Kamugisha Byabato (Civil Reference No. 66878 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 1946 (4 May 2026) here the issue before the court was whether an oral agreement on legal fees between an advocate and a client is enforceable under Tanzanian law. The dispute arose after an advocate instituted proceedings before the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Mwanza seeking enforcement of an alleged verbal agreement on remuneration for legal services rendered.
In the Resident Magistrate’s Court, the advocate requested the court to compel his client to pay what he claimed to be the agreed legal fees. However, the court held that the advocate failed to establish the existence of a definite and certain agreement regarding the amount payable. Consequently, the claim could not as raised above that succeed.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the advocate challenged the ruling before the High Court. Upon reviewing the matter, the High Court held that even if the alleged oral agreement had been successfully proved, it would still be unenforceable because it was not reduced into writing.
In reaching its decision, the High Court relied on section 63 of the Advocates Act, Cap. 341 R.E. 2023 together with the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2015, both of which require agreements on legal fees between advocates and clients to be made in writing. The court emphasized that compliance with these legal provisions is mandatory for enforceability.
The Court has stated that an advocate and a client are allowed to enter into a written agreement fixing legal fees for contentious matters, and such agreements are legally valid and enforceable.
This position recognizes that remuneration should not only depend on statutory scales or taxation where a written agreement exists. In Re Taxation of Costs, Re an Advocate, Civil Reference No. 1 of 1964, the Court held that sections 53 and 54 (now sections 62 and 63) of the Ordinance permit written agreements on remuneration, because without such provisions, agreements for fixed fees would otherwise be contrary to the rules on advocates’ fees.
The Court further held that an oral agreement for fees is unenforceable, and therefore the taxing officer should have rejected a bill of costs based on such an oral agreement.
The holding implies that an oral remuneration agreement between an advocate and a client is not legally enforceable under Order 5(1), (2), and (3)(a). The court emphasized that, even in the absence of a bill of costs, a taxing officer lacks the authority to enforce an oral fee agreement.
Consequently, recovery of legal fees must comply with the prescribed legal procedure, including the filing of a bill of costs or reliance on a valid written remuneration agreement where applicable. The decision further confirms that taxing officers can only exercise powers expressly conferred by law and cannot enforce informal oral arrangements between parties. Accordingly, the reference was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.
In conclusion, both advocates and clients should understand that under Tanzanian law, agreements on legal fees must be made in writing to be valid and enforceable. Oral arrangements, even if agreed upon in good faith, have no legal force and cannot be relied upon in court.
This requirement protects both parties by ensuring clarity, preventing disputes, and promoting fairness in the determination of legal costs. Accordingly, advocates are encouraged to always formalize fee agreements in writing, while clients should insist on written terms before legal services commence.
Antonia J. Ndutu is a junior associate currently training at Darstate Attorneys. She is passionate about learning and professional growth, with a strong interest in law in general. Antonia is dedicated to building her skills and gaining practical experience across different areas of legal practice. She aspires to develop into a versatile and competent lawyer in the future.
Contact UsAs lawyers, we at Darstate Attorneys, our responsibility is to ensure that we guide and advise you on the basic principles and legal procedures in promoting your business, whether be it a service or a product.
The Legal profession is different from other professions especially when it comes to the issue of concentration in advising and acting.