A bid by Senior Counsel Prof Tom Ojienda to recover more than KSh120 million in legal fees has been challenged at the High Court, with beneficiaries of a deceased person’s estate insisting that his law firm was paid in full nearly a decade ago.
In court documents, estate administrators Naomi Kungu and Rahab Kungu argue that Professor Tom Ojienda & Associates entered into a binding fee agreement with the estate and that the agreed legal fees were fully settled in 2017.
The beneficiaries contend that the advocate’s amended Advocate-Client Bill of Costs filed in February 2024, seeking more than KSh120 million, is contrary to the parties’ earlier agreement and has no factual or legal basis. According to the court filings, the law firm had initially lodged a Bill of Costs amounting to about KSh41 million before later demanding KSh12 million as legal fees.
The respondents state that following the demand, the estate transferred KSh20 million to Sheth & Wathigo Advocates, who subsequently remitted KSh18 million. Of that amount, KSh12 million was paid to Professor Tom Ojienda & Associates while KSh6 million was paid to another party involved in the matter.
The administrators argue that the advocate acknowledged receipt of the KSh12 million, which they say represented the agreed legal fees under the parties’ fee agreement. They further submit that correspondence exchanged between the parties in August and September 2017 confirms that both sides had reached a binding agreement on the settlement of the advocate’s fees.
The beneficiaries rely on Section 45 of the Advocates Act, arguing that once parties have entered into a valid fee agreement, an advocate cannot subject the agreed fees to taxation. They also invoke the doctrine of estoppel, maintaining that an advocate cannot accept payment under an agreed arrangement before later seeking substantially higher fees through taxation proceedings.
In addition to opposing the fresh claim, the respondents challenge several items in the amended Bill of Costs, including the valuation of the estate at KSh5.2 billion, the instruction fees, drawing fees, court attendance charges, VAT, and a KSh3 million claim for disbursements. They argue that several of the amounts claimed exceed the limits prescribed under the Advocates Remuneration Order or are unsupported by receipts and other documentary evidence.
The High Court is expected to determine whether the 2017 fee agreement bars Professor Tom Ojienda & Associates from pursuing the amended Bill of Costs through taxation proceedings.
