Nairobi News

NewsWhat's Hot

City lawyer Donald Kipkorir sues county for defaulting on Sh17.5m legal fees

By MAUREEN KAKAH September 18th, 2018 2 min read

City lawyer Donald Kipkorir on Tuesday moved back to court to demand payment of his Sh 17.5 million legal fee by the Baringo county government.

The flamboyant lawyer claims that the county government refused to comply with a court’s directive to pay him Sh17, 570,907.08.

He therefore wants the High Court to compel the Mr Stanely Kiptis-led county government to pay him dues owed to him since November 23, 2017.

He wants the monies paid within five days since the county government seems to have failed to settle the debt despite being served with a court’s decree as well as demand.


“I proceeded to act for the said county government till completion of the case and was given a judgment in their favour,” said Mr Kipkorir.

He added: “I subsequently submitted the fee note to them but they have neglected or refused to settle it compelling me to file a Bill of Costs.”

Mr Kipkorir’s firm represented Baringo County government in a case in which they sued the Attorney General over re-drawing of Turkana boundaries and natural resources to cover parts of Baringo.

It is not the first time the debt issue has landed in the corridors of justice. In November last year, Justice John Mativo ruled that Mr Kipkorir’s law firm, KTK Advocates was rightly entitled to the said monies for service rendered.

At the time, while rendering the judgment, the judge dismissed an application filed by the county government which had sought to set aside the taxation of bills costs entered on June 8, 2017.


The judge had pointed out in his ruling that the difficulty and complexity of the issues raised in the initial suit, the length of the period the matter was in court and the value of the subject matter were among the factors which affected the fairness of the award of such a cost.

The county government had argued that the bill did not meet the mandatory provisions of rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Act.

But the judge had ruled that the bill of costs had been properly filed and taxed accordingly, saying that it was in accordance with the established principle of review.