The National Land Commission (NLC) has lost a bid to stop lawyer Tom Ojienda from demanding a payment of Sh166 million for legal services offered six years ago.
In a case that has lifted the lid on internal wrangles involving procurement of legal services at the commission, the court heard that NLC had called for investigations on how Prof Ojienda’s law firm was engaged.
While urging the Environment and Lands Court to strike out the bill of costs lodged by the law firm, NLC said Mr Ojienda’s firm acted without instructions for a case that was filed in Eldoret by two families.
The case involved illegal acquisition of land in Langas Estate by the defunct Eldoret Municipal Council, in which the government was in January 2018 ordered to pay families of Kiptott arap Sitienei and Joseph arap Korir (both deceased) Sh4.5 billion.
In the case, NLC was the second respondent, the first being Uasin Gishu County government.
Through its director of Legal Affairs and Enforcement Brian Ikol, the commission urged Justice Stephen Kibunja to find that the lawyer is not entitled to the payments on grounds that he was improperly hired.
The commission indicated that the letter of instructions the advocate was relying on to demand the legal fees amounting to Sh166,739,851 did not emanate from the NLC.
Further, that the manner in which the law firm was hired was not in line with the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. Mr Ikol added that the lawyer was demanding the money while there was no evidence that he attended court sessions at any time on behalf of the commission.
But Justice Kibunja dismissed the application following a finding that the lawyer had been properly instructed by the commission’s former director Legal Affairs and Enforcement Kaptuiya Cheboiwo.
The judge found that the lawyer had been issued with a retainer letter dated November 21, 2014. Mr Ojienda had also been furnished with copies of the pleadings and supporting documents for his ‘immediate attention’.
“Though the client (NLC) had in their application alleged that the letter of instruction the advocate was relying on was unsigned, that alleged unsigned copy has not been presented in support. The signed copy attached to the advocate’s replying affidavit has not been challenged in any way,” said Justice Kibunja.
