Estate beneficiaries oppose Ksh.120 million legal fees claim by Ojienda’s law firm

In documents filed before the High Court, the respondents, who are the children and administrators of the deceased's estate- maintain that the advocate Professor Tom Ojienda Associates entered into a binding agreement under which his legal fees would be paid by the estate and that the agreement was fully honoured in 2017.

They argue that correspondence exchanged between the parties in August and September 2017 clearly shows there was a mutual understanding that the estate would settle the advocate's costs.

According to the court papers, the law firm initially presented a Bill of Costs amounting to KSh41 million before later demanding KSh.12 million in legal fees. 

The respondents state that after the demand, the estate transferred KSh20 million to the law firm of Sheth & Wathigo Advocates, which subsequently remitted KSh18 million, including KSh.12 million to the advocate and KSh6 million to another party involved in the matter.

The respondents, Naomi Kungu and Rahab Kungu now contend that the advocate's decision to file an amended Advocate-Client Bill of Costs in February 2024 seeking substantially higher fees is contrary to the parties' agreement and has no factual or legal basis.

They further argue that the advocate himself acknowledged receiving KSh.12 million, saying this confirms the agreed fees had already been settled.

Relying on previous High Court decisions, the respondents maintain that where parties have entered into a valid fee agreement under Section 45 of the Advocates Act, the advocate's costs are not subject to taxation. 

They also invoke the principle of estoppel, arguing the advocate cannot accept payment under an agreement and later seek significantly higher fees through taxation.

The respondents have also challenged several items in the amended Bill of Costs, including the valuation of the estate at KSh.5.2 billion, the instruction fees, drawing fees, court attendance charges, VAT, and a KSh.3 million claim for disbursements, saying many of the amounts exceed what is provided under the Advocates Remuneration Order or are unsupported by receipts and other evidence.

They have asked the Taxing Officer to strike out the amended Bill of Costs in its entirety or, alternatively, reduce it to a reasonable amount, arguing that allowing the claim would unfairly burden the estate and its beneficiaries, who they insist have already fully settled the advocate's professional fees.