Diaspora Design Build Limited & 5 others v Mulondo and Company Advocates (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E020 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4797 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court ruled clients can challenge advocates holding their title deeds over fee disputes, but fee claims from commercial arbitration belong to the High Court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Nature of a preliminary objection
The court applied the Mukisa Biscuit test as restated by the Supreme Court: a preliminary objection raises a pure point of law on assumed pleaded facts
The court relied on Hassan Ali Joho v Suleiman Said Shahbal restating Mukisa Biscuit and on Oraro v Mbaja to confirm that an objection blurred with factual details calling for proof is not a true preliminary objection. The Defendant's objection on jurisdiction was held to be a pure point of law since jurisdiction can be raised at any time.
Jurisdiction over the 1st Plaintiff's claim for withheld arbitration proceeds
The Environment and Land Court has no jurisdiction; the claim belongs to the High Court
The 1st Plaintiff engaged the Defendant in a purely commercial arbitration with Egerton University, whose award was adopted by the High Court, Commercial & Tax Division. Any fee dispute, including the withheld Kshs. 15,000,000/-, requires taxation of costs which only the High Court can undertake.
Jurisdiction over the 2nd Plaintiff's claim for release of its title deed
The court has jurisdiction
The Defendant acted for the 2nd Plaintiff in a constitutional petition filed in the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu concerning land use, and the Defendant's bill of costs was taxed by this same court. The dominant issue, the lawfulness of the lien over the title deed, is therefore within this court's competence.
Jurisdiction over the 3rd to 6th Plaintiffs' claims
It would be premature to find the court lacks jurisdiction; the claims proceed
The nature of services the Defendant rendered to the 3rd to 6th Plaintiffs is unclear and the Defendant had not filed a replying affidavit or taxed bills despite the dispute pending since 2023. The court could not determine whether the Defendant claims possessory or proprietary rights over titles for properties valued at over Kshs. 1 billion.
Legal principles established
#- Where there is a genuine dispute between an advocate and a client over fees, the advocate must file a bill of costs for taxation, and only after taxed costs remain unpaid may the advocate lawfully exercise a lien over a client's title to land or file
- In determining its own jurisdiction, the court must consider the dominant issue in dispute and whether it relates to the environment and the use, occupation of, and title to land
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant for Kshs. 15,967,812.90 together with interest is struck out with each party bearing its own costs
- 2.The 2nd to 6th Plaintiffs' claims shall proceed to hearing on merit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011 (in issue on the Preliminary Objection); suit brought under the Advocates Act, Chapter 16 Laws of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Diaspora Design Build Limited & 5 others v Mulondo and Company Advocates (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E020 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4797 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Originating Summons dated 14th March 2024 (Environment and Land Court, Kisumu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4797/eng@2025-06-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.