The High Court has ordered Nairobi City County government to deposit Sh1.3 billion in a joint bank account with lawyer Donald Kipkorir pending determination of a legal fees dispute.
The lawyer has been demanding payment of the amount by City Hall for his legal services in a court case involving military land ownership.
In the ruling delivered by Justice John Chigiti, the court ordered City Hall to deposit the money in a joint account held by both the County government and Mr Kipkorir's law firm, KTK Advocates, as condition to allow City Hall file its defence and response in the fee note dispute.
This followed decision of the court to set aside its earlier order dated April 3, 2025 requiring the county government to pay him the amount.
The initial judgment had been issued without hearing the county government after it failed to participate in the court proceedings though it had been furnished with the court papers.
However, the judge said the setting aside was on condition that the City Hall deposits the decretal amount in a joint interest earning bank account within 14 days.
"Failure to do that, then the judgment will stand as issued on April 3, 2025," said Justice Chigiti, senior counsel, sitting at the judicial review division in Milimani Nairobi.
The court issued the directions following an application by the governor Johnson Sakaja-led administration, which argued that the order for settlement of the fee note arose from a mishandling of the Advocate-Client bill of cost.
Nairobi County Governor Johnson Sakaja.
Photo credit: Bonface Bogita | Nation Media Group
The county government blamed its former lawyers and the Environment and Lands Court that confirmed the assessment of legal fees. It also pleaded that it had engaged the law firm in negotiations aimed at resolving the payment dispute amicably.
"The replying affidavit shows that the applicant has a defence to advance and they should not be shut out. In the spirit of promoting the interests of justice the court is of the view that the applicant should be given a chance to ventilate its case. In order to balance the interests of the applicant and the respondent, the court has deemed it fit to issue a conditional order noting that the applicant is at the same time willing to settle this matter," said Justice Chigiti.
He, however, noted that City Hall was all along aware of the existence of the primary suits and the court proceedings that led to issuance of the April orders for settlement of the fee note, though its advocates did not participate.
"The applicant does not challenge knowledge of the existence of this suit. The explanation as to why the applicant did not engage in the suit is shaky. The applicant indicates that they entered into bona fide negotiations towards settling the matter, amicably. Negotiations cannot at any one-time amount to a suspension of the execution of a decree unless the same is by consent," the court stated.
It added that the county government had neither lodged an appeal nor made any efforts towards settling the decree.
Through the county attorney, Ms Christine Ireri, City Hall apportioned blame to its former lawyers who were handling the case, though Justice Chigiti rejected the excuse.
"The applicant should demonstrate that they acted diligently in defending the suit. The argument by the applicant that it had instructed advocates who failed to represent them with due care and diligence is not an excuse any more. Gone are the days when the argument of mistake of counsel can bail out a litigant," said Justice Chigiti.
Ms Ireri said the county government was denied a hearing by the Environment and Lands Court, which failed to issue a ruling on the county government's application for setting aside of the decree dated November 3, 2023.
She said the ruling of the Environment court, which gave rise to the current proceedings where the law firm is seeking execution of the decree, was defective and flawed.
The law firm had opposed the application, stating that the same was fatally defective.
Mr Kipkorir said the firm wrote to the county government three times in October and November 2024 seeking an amicable settlement, but no response was received.
Lawyer Donald Kipkorir.
Photo credit: File
It was argued that once an Advocate/Client bill of costs has been taxed, judgment entered and decree issued, the only natural consequence flowing is the issuance of the order compelling payment.
In relation to the alleged negotiations, the firm said that the county government has never made any offer to settle the matter amicably since the bill was assessed and affirmed on May 10, 2022.
The fee note involves a sum of Sh1,338,011,582 accrued from legal services rendered by Mr Kipkorir to the county government against Ministry of Defence in a court dispute involving the parcel of land where Embakasi military barracks stands.
The 3,000-acre land valued at Sh61.5 billion was forcibly taken from the defunct city council of Nairobi by the national government through the Kenya Defence Forces, triggering the court dispute.
The case was filed in 2012 at the Environment and Lands Court but was withdrawn in 2021 through consent between the parties.
Mr Kipkorir had been hired on April 3, 2012, by the defunct city council and proceeded to represent them until when the advocate-client relationship broke down. The law firm was awarded the fees by the court in May 2022.
Awarding Mr Kipkorir the fees, which is one of the highest legal fees awarded in the country’s litigation history, the court considered the value of the property, numerous court appearances and the filings.
The matter is slated to be mentioned to report compliance on November 18, 2025.
