The late Starehe MP Gerishon Kirima (left) and Rarieda MP Otiende Amollo. A law firm linked to Rarieda legislator has rejected a Sh84 million payment award, alleging undervaluation of Kirima estate.
The High Court in Nairobi has ordered a fresh assessment of legal fees owed to Rachier & Amollo LLP, a law firm linked to Rarieda MP Otiende Amollo, by the estate of the late Starehe MP Gerishon Kirima.
This follows the firm’s rejection of a Sh84 million payment award, alleging undervaluation of the estate. While demanding a higher fee, the firm did not specify the exact amount sought.
Rachier & Amollo LLP represented the estate in court before the succession case concluded in February 2025. In its ruling on the firm’s application for reassessment, the court set aside the magistrate’s (taxing master’s) decision and directed that the bill be reviewed by a different officer.
One of the properties owned by the late Starehe MP Gerishon Kirima.
The court found that the valuation process lacked adequate justification for excluding certain assets. It remitted the bill for fresh assessment, emphasising that legal costs "should be fair, should not hinder access to justice, and should reasonably compensate advocates for work done."
The dispute centred on whether legal fees should be based solely on distributable assets or the full estate as defined in the February 21, 2025, succession judgment.
The law firm contested the Sh84 million fee, arguing that it resulted from a flawed valuation exercise.
According to the firm, the taxing officer relied on a single valuation report while disregarding another commissioned by the court, thereby undervaluing the estate.
In an affidavit sworn by Dr Amollo, the firm stated: “The taxing officer erred in finding that only distributable assets comprised the estate… and ascribed a lower value by referencing only one report while ignoring Legend Valuers’ report, despite both being court-commissioned.”
The late Gerishon Kirima at a balcony of his house in Kitisiru on August 7, 2010. The city tycoon passed away on December 29, 2010 while undergoing treatment at a hospital in South Africa.
Kirima, who died on December 21, 2010, left behind a vast estate with 15 beneficiaries.
A former MP and assistant minister under President Daniel Moi’s administration, his estate includes landholdings such as 14 parcels in Kiruri, Murang’a County; one in Kiambu; and 17 parcels plus commercial buildings in Nairobi’s CBD.
The estate also has prime properties, including a plot in Kitisuru Estate, two Njiru parcels of land (one 472.5 acres), Pangani land, Tukika House, Kirima House, and Duruma House.
This is in addition to investments like shares in private firms Kenda Investments Ltd and Wangu Investments Ltd., as well as stakes in 11 publicly traded companies, including Kenya Airways, Kakuzi Ltd., and East African Breweries.
Other assets are 19 vehicles, construction machinery, and cash in nine bank accounts.
Additionally, the estate comprises four fraudulently transferred parcels registered under Kirima & Sons Ltd and two plots pending compensation after compulsory acquisition.
Rachier & Amollo argued that legal fees should reflect the estate’s full court-defined value, not a reduced figure from selective assessments.
They claimed shares worth Sh72 million, bank balances, and other assets such as Kirima's shareholding in Tumaini Estate, were omitted or undervalued despite existing valuation reports.
Rarieda MP Otiende Amollo.
Conversely, the estate’s administrators and Kirima Trust opposed the reassessment, asserting that the taxing master acted lawfully.
They defended reliance on Crystal Valuers’ report, contending that assets held by Kirima Trust and Kirima & Sons Ltd should not factor into the contested fees, as they were not part of the deceased’s estate.
The Trust maintained that the Sh84 million award was fair compensation.
"The taxing officer was right in not including assets found not to comprise the estate of the deceased, specifically, properties that belong to the Kirima trust, Kirima & Sons Limited. The application does not meet the legal threshold where this court should interfere with the discretion of the taxing officer," they argued.
However, the court ruled that while taxing officers have discretion, it must be exercised judicially, especially for complex estates with clear reasoning for disregarding evidence.
“The taxing officer was not obligated to use both (valuation) reports but needed to justify her choice to ensure transparency,” the court held, cautioning that unexplained omissions risked arbitrariness.
Ultimately, the court clarified that fees must align with the estate’s value per the 2025 judgment, rejecting the firm’s distinction between distributable and non-distributable assets.
"I find the distinction that the applicant seeks to draw between the distributable and non-distributable assets not applicable as the distributable assets are those assets that comprise the estate," said the judge.
It affirmed that distributable assets legally constitute the estate.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
