Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEELC 1453 (KLR)

Mwangi & 64 others v Kenya Rural Roads Authority & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 318 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 1453 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
12 March 2026
MCMbogo C.G.
1,880 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court sent a Kshs. 11 million advocate fee dispute to the Advocates Complaints Commission instead of deciding it itself.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs/applicants, who had sued over compensation following the compulsory acquisition of their land, moved the court by notice of motion dated 8th August 2025 against their former advocate, Jeremy Njenga T/A J. M. Njenga & Co. Advocates. They sought an order compelling the advocate to remit Kshs. 11,000,000 in party and party costs allegedly paid to him by the 1st defendant in August and October 2018, together with interest, and a finding that the advocate's pursuit of, and retention of, those costs without informing them amounted to professional misconduct warranting punishment. The applicants relied on retainer agreements providing for 15% advocate-client fees payable directly by the 4th defendant (NLC), a consent order dated 19th February 2017 describing the Kshs. 11,000,000 as party and party costs, and a letter of 13th January 2024 from the 1st defendant confirming payment in two instalments. The advocate raised a preliminary point on non-joinder of his firm, contended the consent erroneously referred to party and party costs when the sums were his advocate-client fees, disputed receipt of the full amount, and challenged the applicants to prove payment. The court held that party and party costs belong to the successful party and not the advocate, and that the consent had not been shown to have been amended. However, invoking Section 53 of the Advocates Act and the doctrine of exhaustion as explained in Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume, it declined to determine the matter itself and referred the allegations of payment and retention of the party and party costs to the Advocates Complaints Commission for investigation and, if it deems fit, referral to the Tribunal. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should determine the claim of payment and non-remittance of party and party costs and professional misconduct by the advocate

Holding

The court declined to determine the merits and referred the allegations to the Advocates Complaints Commission for investigation and possible referral to the Tribunal

Reasoning

The court accepted that party and party costs belong to the successful party, not the advocate, and noted the consent of 19th February 2017 and the 1st defendant's letter confirming payment of Kshs.11,000,000 in two instalments. However, invoking Section 53 of the Advocates Act and the exhaustion doctrine in Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume, it held the disciplinary mechanism should first investigate the complaint. The advocate's preliminary point on non-joinder was not separately resolved, the applicants relying on Section 56.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Party and party costs belong to the party awarded them, not to the advocate
  • Where a dispute resolution mechanism exists, it should be followed (doctrine of exhaustion)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The allegations of payment and retention of party and party costs by the plaintiffs' advocate, the firm of J.M Njenga Advocates, are referred to the Advocates Complaints Commission for investigation and referral to the Tribunal if the Commission deems it fit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Advocates ActSection 45
  • Advocates ActSection 55
  • Advocates ActSection 56
  • Advocates ActSection 80
  • Advocates ActSection 53
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1

Cases cited (3)

  • Nduati & Company Advocates v Mugo (Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2021)
    [2025] KEHC 14142 (KLR)
  • Waruhiu K'owade & Ng'ang'a Advocates v Mutune Investment Limited
    [2016] KECA 835 (KLR)
  • Speaker of the National Assembly v James Njenga Karume
    [1992] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 45, 55, 56 and 80 of the Advocates Act and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mwangi & 64 others v Kenya Rural Roads Authority & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 318 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 1453 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1453/eng@2026-03-12

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.