A fresh hearing began this week as Mumias Sugar Company Limited seeks to overturn a High Court decision requiring it to pay Ksh92 million to the law firm of Prof. Tom Ojienda &Associates, after the court upheld a taxation ruling on legal fees tied to arbitration with Mumias Outgrowers Company Ltd.
The matter centres on Mumias’s appeal of a deputy registrar’s decision which had confirmed fees based on documents filed by Ojienda’s firm before an arbitrator.
The case dates to early 2018 when Prof. Ojienda took over representation of Mumias Sugar in arbitration proceedings previously handled by another firm, Hamilton Harrison & Mathews Advocates.
The miller argued before the court that the earlier firm had already earned instruction fees by filing pleadings in 2014, and that Ojienda’s firm should not claim additional sums for the same work. Ojienda’s team countered that they had filed an amended counterclaim responding to a Ksh 7.6 billion claim by Mumias Outgrowers, thereby entitling them to separate instruction fees.
In his ruling, Justice David Majanja dismissed Mumias’s appeal, finding that the deputy registrar had appropriately based the fee assessment on the materials filed with the arbitrator.
The court noted there was no dispute over the case’s value or the sequence of proceedings, affirming that Ojienda’s firm had properly prepared and lodged substantive documentation that warranted fresh fees.
The dispute is unfolding against a backdrop of broader legal and reputational battles. Prof. Ojienda has publicly refuted separate allegations brought by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and the Director of Public Prosecutions, which include claims of fraud and misrepresentation tied to earlier legal fee disputes with Mumias Sugar.
In particular, allegations that he fabricated court cases to extract money from the company and misappropriated around Ksh89 million have been lodged, though Ojienda maintains these accusations are baseless and malicious.
This current hearing revisits arguments initially made before the taxation master, where the firm’s fee claim of approximately Ksh642 million was slashed to Ksh92 million by the deputy registrar. That ruling formed the basis for the appeal now under review.
Mumias is pressing for a fresh assessment by a different deputy registrar, arguing that fees already paid to HHM should preclude overlapping entitlements to Ojienda’s firm.
At the heart of the matter is the question of entitlement: whether a successor law firm can claim instruction fees for legal documentation distinct from work already compensated under an earlier mandate. Mumias’s appeal rests on the claim that Ojienda’s fee demand duplicates earlier payments, while the firm insists its amended pleadings justify a separate charge.
As proceedings resume, legal observers note the wider implications for legal billing and arbitration fee practices in Kenya. The case underscores the significance of clear transitions between law firms and documentation of discrete legal milestones.
The renewed hearing will test both the legal merit of Mumias’s contestation and the precedent of fee allocation among successive legal representatives in protracted disputes.
Written By Ian Maleve
