On December 18, 2014, Nairobi City County issued a demand notice to Yellow Horse Inn Limited, a tenant, for Sh5.3 million for land rates and interest.
The property, located within the city, was listed as privately owned, according to the county’s own records. But what began as a routine revenue claim spiralled into a prolonged and contentious legal battle after the tenant sued the county for wrongful listing.
In a bizarre twist, City Hall later changed its stance during the litigation process, claiming that the same parcel of land actually belonged to the county government. The case evolved into what Nairobi County MCAs now claim was a manufactured dispute and one that has exposed what they describe as a web of collusion and financial impropriety between law firms and county officials.
To represent its changing position in court, City Hall retained private law firm Momanyi and Associates, which submitted an initial fee note of Sh80 million, later revised to Sh34 million. However, no contract, itemised invoice, internal legal memo or formal correspondence has been availed to justify the cost.
In another case, Nairobi County was sued for alleged bribery and malpractice in the shortlisting of traffic marshal recruits. Gikunda Miriti and Company Advocates was engaged to defend the county’s interests and later issued a fee note of Sh100 million, which was revised to Sh67 million. The amount was paid on June 20, 2023.
Separately, a Sh30 million payment was made to another law firm despite the absence of supporting documents such as the case file, a legal opinion from the county’s legal department or a contract.
These transactions are now under scrutiny by Nairobi City MCAs, who claim the county is being defrauded through inflated legal bills. Currently, 11 law firms are demanding a total of Sh10.7 billion from the county government for legal services rendered, prompting a public outcry and prompting investigations by the County Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee.
“If the county can issue a demand for land rates to an individual only to later claim ownership of the same land, does that not signal a failure of due diligence?” asked Ngara MCA Mwaura Chege during a hearing.
Baba Dogo MCA Geoffrey Majiwa accused City Hall of intentionally entangling itself in unnecessary litigation. “That parcel in Ruaraka was earmarked for a fire station. Yet, a demand was issued, rates were paid, and the land was eventually sold. There’s now a private fire station on public land, and the county is in court trying to reclaim it,” he said.
While many of the disputes date back over a decade, the current county administration has raised red flags over the steep fees claimed by some firms. This concern led to the formation of a taskforce specifically mandated to audit and review pending legal bills.
According to County Attorney Christine Ireri, who has held office for less than a year, many of the court cases involved urgent legal matters that left the county with no time to draft formal contracts.
“No advocate is currently being paid without internal review. If a firm was previously promised Sh60 million that figure must now be vetted against the Advocates Remuneration Order by our in-house lawyers,” she said.
Nation.Africa has established that by late last year, the taskforce had reviewed 162 files, totalling Sh7 billion in claims. This audit is expected to significantly slash pending legal bills. So far, the county has paid out Sh375.9 million for legal services.
Much of the legal outsourcing stems from the county’s limited legal capacity. Currently, Nairobi County employs 24 advocates, including the county attorney. With hundreds of active and incoming cases, this workforce is grossly inadequate, leading to over-reliance on external law firms, a loophole that has allegedly been exploited.
Governor Johnson Sakaja’s administration has pledged to remedy this by hiring an additional 20 lawyers. The goal, officials say, is to reduce external legal costs and reclaim control of the county’s litigation processes.
“There is a tendency to expect windfall payments from the county. But let us be honest, governments don’t generate revenue like private businesses,” Ms Ireri said.
She added that many pending legal bills are not only inflated but were also approved without due diligence, raising serious ethical and procedural concerns. “Some of these payments were committed by a single individual without any oversight. For example, we found one advocate who had been promised Sh1 billion. That is not only shocking but unacceptable,” she said.
Ms Ireri added that legal fees must adhere to the Advocates Remuneration Order, which sets out standard guidelines for determining legal charges based on the nature and complexity of a case.
“The taskforce comprises internal advocates and external assessors who evaluate the merit of each fee claim. If the amount is unjustified, it is rejected,” she said.
The situation has sparked tension between the county government and members of the legal fraternity. Some lawyers have reportedly expressed frustration over the new vetting process, arguing that it undermines previous agreements.
“Many of them expected to be paid the full amounts they negotiated with individual county officials. But we must prioritise transparency and fiscal responsibility,” said Ms Ireri.
While the process has stirred resistance from certain quarters, county officials insist that it is necessary to restore public trust and accountability.
“We need to build a system that protects public resources, holds people accountable, and ensures legal representation is based on merit and not personal deals,” Ms Ireri said.
