Nairobi County Ordered to Pay Sh311m in Uhuru Park Legal Fees Case

A court battle linked to the renovation of Uhuru Park has left Nairobi County facing a Sh311.3 million payout. It is the end point of a legal fees dispute that began with a bill nearly four times that size.

The High Court ordered the county government to pay advocate Victor Ogeto Swanya, trading as Swanya & Co Advocates. The court found that the county was bound by a fee agreement it had voluntarily signed once the underlying Uhuru Park case concluded.

The matter traces back to 2021, when the Communist Party of Kenya filed a petition challenging the closure and rehabilitation of the park. The project was then being carried out by the Nairobi Metropolitan Services, and the petition raised questions over public participation and environmental compliance.

Nairobi County instructed Mr Swanya to represent its interests in the case in a letter dated December 17, 2021. The Environment and Land Court delivered its judgment on March 3, 2022.

The court found that rehabilitation works had started before an environmental licence was obtained. It declined to halt the project once the licence was later issued.

What followed turned into a separate legal fight altogether. Mr Swanya initially presented a fee note of Sh1.17 billion for his work on the case.

That figure was later negotiated down by the then Acting County Solicitor. A day after the judgment, the two sides agreed on an all-inclusive fee of Sh325.3 million.

The amount was calculated against a subject matter value of Sh139 million. It covered instruction fees, getting-up fees, value-added tax and other charges.

Then County Solicitor Erick Odhiambo told the advocate in writing that the bill had been verified under the Advocates Remuneration Order. Mr Swanya accepted the same day.

The court later described this exchange as a binding agreement under the Advocates Act. Records presented in court showed the county moved to honour the deal.

A payment voucher for Sh90 million was prepared. The Controller of Budget approved withdrawal of Sh85 million from the County Revenue Fund for part payment.

Mr Swanya told the court the approved funds were diverted for other purposes. The county did not dispute this claim.

Two years later, on April 26, 2024, the county reassessed the fees and slashed the payable amount to Sh14 million. Officials argued the original figure was excessive and had been arrived at in error.

They maintained the underlying case was a constitutional petition rather than a commercial dispute. Public funds, they said, had to be spent prudently.

Mr Swanya rejected the revised figure and sued for the outstanding Sh311 million plus interest. The High Court sided with him in its ruling.

It found that the fee agreement had never been set aside through the procedures laid out in the Advocates Act. The county attorney who negotiated it, the court said, had the authority to do so.

The court acknowledged the size of the original bill was striking. It noted that a billion-shilling fee note would raise eyebrows in any quarter.

Public money, the judge observed, might have been better spent on hospitals, roads or street lighting. But the county had failed to use the legal channels available to challenge the agreement.

It never filed a counterclaim to be released from the terms of the deal. Judgment was entered for Sh311.3 million, plus interest at court rates and legal costs.