1. This Ruling is in respect of an Originating Summons dated 16th March, 2026. It is a dispute between a Client and an Advocate over fees.
Background Facts
2. The Applicant filed the Originating Summons dated 16th March, 2026 seeking the following orders;
1.) Spent.
2.) THAТ pending the filing and taxation of the Respondent's Bill of Costs, the Respondent be and is hereby ordered to deposit the balance of Kshs. 9,882,000/= (being the balance of the Kshs. 12 million after deducting agreeable legal fees of Kshs. 1,500,000/= and acknowledged advances of Kshs. 618,000/=) into a Joint Interest-Bearing Account in the names of M/s Muturi S.K & Co. Advocates and M/s Kaluki Muriu Ndiritu Advocates LLP to avoid dissipation.
3.) THAT a MANDATORY INJUNCTION be and is hereby issued compelling the Respondent to forthwith deliver to the offices of M/s Muturi S.K & Co. Advocates the Original Surrender and Counterpart for L.R. No. 89/10/19 dated 15th July 2025.
4.) THAT the Respondent be compelled to release all other original Title Deeds and completion documents in its possession related to the estate of the Late Wilson Muturi Muguro, specifically L.R. Nos. 89/53,89/51(Plot K, B, A, C, G &H) and 89/52 and 89/32.
5.) THAT the Respondent be ordered to provide a comprehensive and verified professional Statement of Account regarding the sum of Kshs. 12,000,000/= received from Lawrence Mbugua Mwaganu.
6.) THAT the Court be pleased to note that the Respondent's right to a lien for any disputed exorbitant legal fees is subject to their right to file a Bill of Costs for Taxation, which process shall not be used as a basis to obstruct the Applicants' use and enjoyment of their properties.
7.) THAT the costs of this Application be provided for
3. The Application was supported by the Affidavit of Nicholas Muturi Muguro. He stated that the Respondent has unlawfully continued to withhold the original titles and foundational surrender documents. This is despite the Applicants revoking the Respondent’s instructions on 16th February, 2026. The Second Applicant, Nicholas Muturi Muguro, averred that he has at all material times acted as the principal instructing client on behalf of his elderly mother, Lois, and his sister, Joy. The Fourth Applicant is the purchaser of L.R. No. 89/53 and Plot K, having already paid a sum of Kshs. 12,000,000/= towards the purchase price. The Applicants further stated that the Respondent has issued fee notes amounting to Kshs.12,124,920/=, which they term as excessive and unconscionable, particularly as the Respondent seeks to consume the entire sale deposit without any lawful unilateral determination of fees.
4. Further, the Respondent is improperly attempting to assert a lien over both the physical title documents and the substantial sale proceeds simultaneously, which they describe as an impermissible and professionally untenable form of double recovery. According to the Applicants, they have already proposed a reasonable fee cap and, should the Respondent dispute the same, the proper legal recourse lies in taxation of costs rather than continued detention of critical land documents. The continued withholding of the surrender documents for L.R. No. 89/10/19 and the individual titles has occasioned irreparable financial loss. It has hindered the family from dealing with the property. It was further stated that there was an apprehension that the sale proceeds allegedly held as lien may dissipate during the pendency of taxation proceedings. This is unless secured through deposit in Court or other appropriate safeguards.
5. In response, the Respondent filed the Replying Affidavit and Grounds of Opposition dated 20th April, 2026 on the following grounds;
1.) The 2nd applicant lacks the locus standi to institute this suit on behalf of the 1st, 3rd and 4th applicants.
2.) The jurisdiction of the Court has not been properly invoked.
3.) The Application is incompetent, fatally defective and non-starter for want of an express authority for the 2nd applicant to plead and prosecute this suit on behalf of the 1st, 3rd and 4th Applicants.
4.) The Applicant has failed to disclose that some of the proceeds of the sale have, on his direct instructions, been utilized to settle his debts and some advanced to him for his personal use.
5.) The Respondent has a right to lien over the proceeds of sale and the Applicants' property over unpaid legal fees for professional services rendered.
6.) The Application has been filed as an afterthought by the Applicants with the sole intent of denying the Respondent fees for work expended to the Applicants over the years.
7.) The Applicants have not met the legal threshold/conditions sought. for granting reliefs
8.) The application is fatally defective, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.
6. In the Replying Affidavit the Respondent averred that it was duly instructed jointly and severally by all the Applicants. This was in relation to litigation, mediation, subdivision, and conveyancing processes concerning L.R. No. 89/10 and its resultant subdivisions. That each Applicant is consequently liable for legal fees arising from the services rendered. The Respondent stated that it represented the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Applicants in litigation, court-annexed mediation, subdivision, and conveyancing matters, including drafting pleadings, attending Court, coordinating surveyors, facilitating transfers, and undertaking all legal processes relating to the subdivision and distribution of the suit property.
7. The Respondent further averred that it currently holds title documents for L.R. No. 89/51 in the name of the 1st Applicant as trustee for other beneficiaries. Also, it is in custody of the original surrender document for L.R. No. 89/10/19 pending release to the 1st Applicant. It is contended that the 2nd Applicant’s title documents were released through his Advocates on 9th March, 2026, while the 4th Applicant’s title documents were released on 16th March, 2026. Thus, rendering allegations of unlawful detention overtaken by events. The Respondent also maintained that the 4th Applicant settled only disbursements and remains indebted for outstanding professional fees.
8. The Respondent denied holding any undisputed funds on behalf of the Applicants. It was contended that any monies held are subject to reconciliation of accounts and settlement of legal fees lawfully charged in accordance with the Advocates Remuneration Order. The Respondent further denied the existence of any agreed fee cap and maintains that it is lawfully exercising an Advocate’s lien over documents and/or funds as security for unpaid fees. According to the Respondent, the Applicants’ proper recourse lies in taxation of the Bill of Costs rather than seeking mandatory injunctive relief. It consequently prays that the Application be dismissed with costs and that the Respondent’s lien be upheld.
Issues for determination
9. After carefully considering the Application, the response, and the written submissions, the Court frames the following issue for determination;
a) Whether the Application is merited.
Analysis
10. It is undisputed that there existed an Advocate Client relationship between the Applicants and the Respondent. On the one hand, the Applicants maintain that the Respondent held on behalf of the Applicants the sum of Ksh.12,000,000, received in tranches on 6th March, 2024 and 13th October, 2025 from the proceeds of a sale. On the other hand, Respondent denied holding any undisputed funds on behalf of the Applicants. It contended that any monies held are subject to reconciliation of accounts and settlement of legal fees lawfully charged in accordance with the Advocates Remuneration Order.
11. It is notable that the Applicants do acknowledge that the Respondent is owed money for legal work done and that the Respondent holds the Applicants’ title documents. Further, the Respondent acknowledged that there are some monies which it holds. It submits that the funds are held subject to reconciliation of accounts and settlement of legal fees lawfully charged.
12. The Respondent in the Grounds of Opposition also took the position that it has a right to lien over the proceeds of sale and the Applicants' property over unpaid legal fees for professional services rendered.
13. It is trite that an Advocate’s retaining lien is a common law entitlement. It allows an advocate to retain possession of a client’s property, including documents or monies received in the course of professional engagement, as security for payment of legal fees. However, such a lien can only be exercised in respect of costs that are properly due and payable. Legal costs do not become due or enforceable until they have been determined either through agreement between the parties or through taxation by a Taxing Officer
14. In Simon Njumwa Maghanga v Joyce Jeptarus Kagongo T/A Chesaro & Co. Advocates [2014] eKLR, the Court addressed the issue of when an Advocates fees become due by stating that -
“It is clear from the foregoing that an Advocate’s fees are not due until his Bill of Costs has been served on the client and where it is not settled, until it is taxed by the court. The client has exercised its rights under Order LII rule 4(1) (d) of Civil Procedure Rules which stipulates thus -
O. LII. r.4 (1) where the relationship of advocate and client exists or has existed the court may, on the application of the client or his legal personal representative, make an order for-
a.…
b.…
c.…
d. The payment into or lodging in court of any such money or securities.”
The Advocate has no right under any law to hold monies that which have come to him for onward transmission to his client as lien, at least no such law has been cited to the court. What the Advocate is doing by holding onto the Plaintiffs’ monies, is irregular and the court cannot condone the same.” (Emphasis provided).
I agree with the learned Judge’s holding that the Advocate’s fee only becomes due after the bill of costs has been taxed by the court. Before the bill is taxed, there is no telling how much is due to the Advocate. The position therefore is that an advocate cannot exercise lien over client’s money on the basis of a bill of cost that is yet to be taxed. It is improper for an advocate to withhold a client’s money on account of fees that is yet to be ascertained through the taxation process. The Advocate should release the client’s money to him.”
15. It is the Court’s understanding that the fees claimed by the Respondent have neither been settled nor taxed by a Taxing Officer. Guided by the above case law, the Court finds that the Advocate’s fees are not yet due in order for the defendant to exercise its right of a lien over the said Kshs.12,000,000.00.
16. The Court notes that the Applicants speak of “agreeable legal fees of Kshs. 1,500,000/= and acknowledged advances of Kshs. 618,000/=”. The assumption is that whichever way the matter goes there is no dispute that the Respondent is entitled to Kshs. 2,118,000/=. The dispute is as to the balance of Kshs. 9,882,000/=.
17. In the interest of justice, the Court directs the Respondent to deposit Kshs. 9,882,000/=into a Joint Interest-earning Bank Account in the names of M/s Muturi S.K & Co. Advocates and M/s Kaluki Muriu Ndiritu Advocates LLP pending the determination of the fees by a Taxing Officer.
18. As to the injunction sought, the Court notes that the response by the Respondent is that it has already released some of the documents. Any other documents are either held on lien for fees or part of the transaction. The Court declines to grant the injunction at this juncture. Let the issue of fees be resolved.
19. This dispute can be resolved quickly and efficiently by the Respondent filing its bills of costs for taxation by the Court. A dispute over the Advocates fees having arisen, the Advocates ought to have already presented their Bills of costs to Court for taxation. They should prepare the Bills and present them to Court within the next Thirty (30) days.
20. On the issue of costs, the same lie at the discretion of the Court. Costs follow the event. The Court also has a duty to save on costs. It is fair in the circumstances of this case that each party bears their own costs.
Determination
21. The Applicants application by way of an Originating Summons dated 16th March, 2026 is allowed in the following terms;
1.) THAТ pending the filing and taxation of the Respondent's Bill of Costs, or the agreement between the Applicants and the Respondent as to the legal fees due and payable by the Applicants to the Respondent, the Respondent be and is HEREBY ordered to deposit the balance of Kshs. 9,882,000/= (being the balance of the Kshs. 12 million after deducting agreeable legal fees of Kshs. 1,500,000/= and acknowledged advances of Kshs. 618,000/=) into a Joint Interest-Bearing Account in the names of M/s Muturi S.K & Co. Advocates and M/s Kaluki Muriu Ndiritu Advocates LLP. This is to be done within the next Forty-Five (45) days from the date hereof. In the event that Counsel for the parties cannot agree on the modalities of the bank account to be opened, the Respondent to deposit into Court the entire sum of Kshs. 9,882,000/=, within Five (5) days of expiry of the earlier period stated. The monies are to held in escrow in a joint account or as a security deposit if in Court, pending further orders from this Court.
2.) THAT the Respondent be and is HEREBY ordered to provide a comprehensive Statement of Account regarding the sum of Kshs. 12,000,000/= received from Lawrence Mbugua Mwaganu, within Fourteen (14) days from the date of this order.
3.) THAT the Respondent to prepare and file their Bills of costs for taxation by the Taxing Master of this Court. The Bills of Costs to be filed within Thirty (30) days from the date of this Ruling.
4.) THAT each party to bear their own costs of the Application.
22. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MILIMANI THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.
NJOROGE BENJAMIN K.
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Gachuiri for the Applicants.
Mr.Njuguna for the Respondent.
Ms. Susan Nzioka - Court Assistant.
Background Facts
2. The Applicant filed the Originating Summons dated 16th March, 2026 seeking the following orders;
1.) Spent.
2.) THAТ pending the filing and taxation of the Respondent's Bill of Costs, the Respondent be and is hereby ordered to deposit the balance of Kshs. 9,882,000/= (being the balance of the Kshs. 12 million after deducting agreeable legal fees of Kshs. 1,500,000/= and acknowledged advances of Kshs. 618,000/=) into a Joint Interest-Bearing Account in the names of M/s Muturi S.K & Co. Advocates and M/s Kaluki Muriu Ndiritu Advocates LLP to avoid dissipation.
3.) THAT a MANDATORY INJUNCTION be and is hereby issued compelling the Respondent to forthwith deliver to the offices of M/s Muturi S.K & Co. Advocates the Original Surrender and Counterpart for L.R. No. 89/10/19 dated 15th July 2025.
4.) THAT the Respondent be compelled to release all other original Title Deeds and completion documents in its possession related to the estate of the Late Wilson Muturi Muguro, specifically L.R. Nos. 89/53,89/51(Plot K, B, A, C, G &H) and 89/52 and 89/32.
5.) THAT the Respondent be ordered to provide a comprehensive and verified professional Statement of Account regarding the sum of Kshs. 12,000,000/= received from Lawrence Mbugua Mwaganu.
6.) THAT the Court be pleased to note that the Respondent's right to a lien for any disputed exorbitant legal fees is subject to their right to file a Bill of Costs for Taxation, which process shall not be used as a basis to obstruct the Applicants' use and enjoyment of their properties.
7.) THAT the costs of this Application be provided for
3. The Application was supported by the Affidavit of Nicholas Muturi Muguro. He stated that the Respondent has unlawfully continued to withhold the original titles and foundational surrender documents. This is despite the Applicants revoking the Respondent’s instructions on 16th February, 2026. The Second Applicant, Nicholas Muturi Muguro, averred that he has at all material times acted as the principal instructing client on behalf of his elderly mother, Lois, and his sister, Joy. The Fourth Applicant is the purchaser of L.R. No. 89/53 and Plot K, having already paid a sum of Kshs. 12,000,000/= towards the purchase price. The Applicants further stated that the Respondent has issued fee notes amounting to Kshs.12,124,920/=, which they term as excessive and unconscionable, particularly as the Respondent seeks to consume the entire sale deposit without any lawful unilateral determination of fees.
4. Further, the Respondent is improperly attempting to assert a lien over both the physical title documents and the substantial sale proceeds simultaneously, which they describe as an impermissible and professionally untenable form of double recovery. According to the Applicants, they have already proposed a reasonable fee cap and, should the Respondent dispute the same, the proper legal recourse lies in taxation of costs rather than continued detention of critical land documents. The continued withholding of the surrender documents for L.R. No. 89/10/19 and the individual titles has occasioned irreparable financial loss. It has hindered the family from dealing with the property. It was further stated that there was an apprehension that the sale proceeds allegedly held as lien may dissipate during the pendency of taxation proceedings. This is unless secured through deposit in Court or other appropriate safeguards.
5. In response, the Respondent filed the Replying Affidavit and Grounds of Opposition dated 20th April, 2026 on the following grounds;
1.) The 2nd applicant lacks the locus standi to institute this suit on behalf of the 1st, 3rd and 4th applicants.
2.) The jurisdiction of the Court has not been properly invoked.
3.) The Application is incompetent, fatally defective and non-starter for want of an express authority for the 2nd applicant to plead and prosecute this suit on behalf of the 1st, 3rd and 4th Applicants.
4.) The Applicant has failed to disclose that some of the proceeds of the sale have, on his direct instructions, been utilized to settle his debts and some advanced to him for his personal use.
5.) The Respondent has a right to lien over the proceeds of sale and the Applicants' property over unpaid legal fees for professional services rendered.
6.) The Application has been filed as an afterthought by the Applicants with the sole intent of denying the Respondent fees for work expended to the Applicants over the years.
7.) The Applicants have not met the legal threshold/conditions sought. for granting reliefs
8.) The application is fatally defective, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.
6. In the Replying Affidavit the Respondent averred that it was duly instructed jointly and severally by all the Applicants. This was in relation to litigation, mediation, subdivision, and conveyancing processes concerning L.R. No. 89/10 and its resultant subdivisions. That each Applicant is consequently liable for legal fees arising from the services rendered. The Respondent stated that it represented the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Applicants in litigation, court-annexed mediation, subdivision, and conveyancing matters, including drafting pleadings, attending Court, coordinating surveyors, facilitating transfers, and undertaking all legal processes relating to the subdivision and distribution of the suit property.
7. The Respondent further averred that it currently holds title documents for L.R. No. 89/51 in the name of the 1st Applicant as trustee for other beneficiaries. Also, it is in custody of the original surrender document for L.R. No. 89/10/19 pending release to the 1st Applicant. It is contended that the 2nd Applicant’s title documents were released through his Advocates on 9th March, 2026, while the 4th Applicant’s title documents were released on 16th March, 2026. Thus, rendering allegations of unlawful detention overtaken by events. The Respondent also maintained that the 4th Applicant settled only disbursements and remains indebted for outstanding professional fees.
8. The Respondent denied holding any undisputed funds on behalf of the Applicants. It was contended that any monies held are subject to reconciliation of accounts and settlement of legal fees lawfully charged in accordance with the Advocates Remuneration Order. The Respondent further denied the existence of any agreed fee cap and maintains that it is lawfully exercising an Advocate’s lien over documents and/or funds as security for unpaid fees. According to the Respondent, the Applicants’ proper recourse lies in taxation of the Bill of Costs rather than seeking mandatory injunctive relief. It consequently prays that the Application be dismissed with costs and that the Respondent’s lien be upheld.
Issues for determination
9. After carefully considering the Application, the response, and the written submissions, the Court frames the following issue for determination;
a) Whether the Application is merited.
Analysis
10. It is undisputed that there existed an Advocate Client relationship between the Applicants and the Respondent. On the one hand, the Applicants maintain that the Respondent held on behalf of the Applicants the sum of Ksh.12,000,000, received in tranches on 6th March, 2024 and 13th October, 2025 from the proceeds of a sale. On the other hand, Respondent denied holding any undisputed funds on behalf of the Applicants. It contended that any monies held are subject to reconciliation of accounts and settlement of legal fees lawfully charged in accordance with the Advocates Remuneration Order.
11. It is notable that the Applicants do acknowledge that the Respondent is owed money for legal work done and that the Respondent holds the Applicants’ title documents. Further, the Respondent acknowledged that there are some monies which it holds. It submits that the funds are held subject to reconciliation of accounts and settlement of legal fees lawfully charged.
12. The Respondent in the Grounds of Opposition also took the position that it has a right to lien over the proceeds of sale and the Applicants' property over unpaid legal fees for professional services rendered.
13. It is trite that an Advocate’s retaining lien is a common law entitlement. It allows an advocate to retain possession of a client’s property, including documents or monies received in the course of professional engagement, as security for payment of legal fees. However, such a lien can only be exercised in respect of costs that are properly due and payable. Legal costs do not become due or enforceable until they have been determined either through agreement between the parties or through taxation by a Taxing Officer
14. In Simon Njumwa Maghanga v Joyce Jeptarus Kagongo T/A Chesaro & Co. Advocates [2014] eKLR, the Court addressed the issue of when an Advocates fees become due by stating that -
“It is clear from the foregoing that an Advocate’s fees are not due until his Bill of Costs has been served on the client and where it is not settled, until it is taxed by the court. The client has exercised its rights under Order LII rule 4(1) (d) of Civil Procedure Rules which stipulates thus -
O. LII. r.4 (1) where the relationship of advocate and client exists or has existed the court may, on the application of the client or his legal personal representative, make an order for-
a.…
b.…
c.…
d. The payment into or lodging in court of any such money or securities.”
The Advocate has no right under any law to hold monies that which have come to him for onward transmission to his client as lien, at least no such law has been cited to the court. What the Advocate is doing by holding onto the Plaintiffs’ monies, is irregular and the court cannot condone the same.” (Emphasis provided).
I agree with the learned Judge’s holding that the Advocate’s fee only becomes due after the bill of costs has been taxed by the court. Before the bill is taxed, there is no telling how much is due to the Advocate. The position therefore is that an advocate cannot exercise lien over client’s money on the basis of a bill of cost that is yet to be taxed. It is improper for an advocate to withhold a client’s money on account of fees that is yet to be ascertained through the taxation process. The Advocate should release the client’s money to him.”
15. It is the Court’s understanding that the fees claimed by the Respondent have neither been settled nor taxed by a Taxing Officer. Guided by the above case law, the Court finds that the Advocate’s fees are not yet due in order for the defendant to exercise its right of a lien over the said Kshs.12,000,000.00.
16. The Court notes that the Applicants speak of “agreeable legal fees of Kshs. 1,500,000/= and acknowledged advances of Kshs. 618,000/=”. The assumption is that whichever way the matter goes there is no dispute that the Respondent is entitled to Kshs. 2,118,000/=. The dispute is as to the balance of Kshs. 9,882,000/=.
17. In the interest of justice, the Court directs the Respondent to deposit Kshs. 9,882,000/=into a Joint Interest-earning Bank Account in the names of M/s Muturi S.K & Co. Advocates and M/s Kaluki Muriu Ndiritu Advocates LLP pending the determination of the fees by a Taxing Officer.
18. As to the injunction sought, the Court notes that the response by the Respondent is that it has already released some of the documents. Any other documents are either held on lien for fees or part of the transaction. The Court declines to grant the injunction at this juncture. Let the issue of fees be resolved.
19. This dispute can be resolved quickly and efficiently by the Respondent filing its bills of costs for taxation by the Court. A dispute over the Advocates fees having arisen, the Advocates ought to have already presented their Bills of costs to Court for taxation. They should prepare the Bills and present them to Court within the next Thirty (30) days.
20. On the issue of costs, the same lie at the discretion of the Court. Costs follow the event. The Court also has a duty to save on costs. It is fair in the circumstances of this case that each party bears their own costs.
Determination
21. The Applicants application by way of an Originating Summons dated 16th March, 2026 is allowed in the following terms;
1.) THAТ pending the filing and taxation of the Respondent's Bill of Costs, or the agreement between the Applicants and the Respondent as to the legal fees due and payable by the Applicants to the Respondent, the Respondent be and is HEREBY ordered to deposit the balance of Kshs. 9,882,000/= (being the balance of the Kshs. 12 million after deducting agreeable legal fees of Kshs. 1,500,000/= and acknowledged advances of Kshs. 618,000/=) into a Joint Interest-Bearing Account in the names of M/s Muturi S.K & Co. Advocates and M/s Kaluki Muriu Ndiritu Advocates LLP. This is to be done within the next Forty-Five (45) days from the date hereof. In the event that Counsel for the parties cannot agree on the modalities of the bank account to be opened, the Respondent to deposit into Court the entire sum of Kshs. 9,882,000/=, within Five (5) days of expiry of the earlier period stated. The monies are to held in escrow in a joint account or as a security deposit if in Court, pending further orders from this Court.
2.) THAT the Respondent be and is HEREBY ordered to provide a comprehensive Statement of Account regarding the sum of Kshs. 12,000,000/= received from Lawrence Mbugua Mwaganu, within Fourteen (14) days from the date of this order.
3.) THAT the Respondent to prepare and file their Bills of costs for taxation by the Taxing Master of this Court. The Bills of Costs to be filed within Thirty (30) days from the date of this Ruling.
4.) THAT each party to bear their own costs of the Application.
22. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MILIMANI THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.
NJOROGE BENJAMIN K.
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Gachuiri for the Applicants.
Mr.Njuguna for the Respondent.
Ms. Susan Nzioka - Court Assistant.