Businessman Ngugi Kiuna has failed in his bid to stop a law firm from pursuing more than Sh189 million in legal fees over its alleged representation of his company, Maxam Ltd, in a long-running commercial dispute against Dutch beer giant Heineken.
The High Court declined to halt taxation proceedings initiated by the firm of Okoth & Kiplagat Advocates, ruling that Mr Kiuna’s objections should be determined by the court handling the advocate-client bill of costs.
“The matters raised in the Certificate of Urgency may be raised before the Deputy Registrar, who shall be at liberty to give directions or determine whether there is need to refer the matter to a judge before taxation or await the filing of a reference, if any, after taxation,” the court ruled on July 2, 2026.
The dispute stems from a bill of costs filed by Okoth & Kiplagat Advocates seeking Sh189,232,603 for legal services allegedly rendered to Maxam Ltd in litigation against Heineken following the termination of a distributorship agreement in 2016.
Mr Kiuna, whose company ultimately secured a victory against the Dutch brewer, insists that Okoth & Kiplagat was never instructed to act for either him or Maxam Ltd. He maintains that Nyachoti & Company Advocates represented the company throughout the proceedings.
According to court documents, Okoth & Kiplagat served Maxam Ltd with a notice of taxation and the advocate-client bill of costs on May 20, 2026.
Maxam opposed the bill, arguing that no advocate-client relationship, retainer or lawful instructions existed to support the claim for legal fees.
“The application raises weighty and arguable issues of law and fact regarding the existence of an advocate-client relationship, retainer and lawful instructions capable of sustaining the bill of costs,” the company told the court.
Mr Kiuna argued that unless the taxation proceedings were stopped, Maxam would be forced to defend a claim founded on a disputed and unproven advocate-client relationship, exposing it to substantial prejudice, injustice and unnecessary expense.
In his affidavit, Mr Kiuna said he met advocate Ken Kiplagat in 2017 after being introduced by a longtime friend. He said discussions were held on the possibility of Kiplagat and Nyachoti & Company Advocates working together by sharing legal strategies in the Heineken litigation.
However, Mr Kiuna said his advocates declined any formal arrangement that would have seen the two firms jointly represent Maxam.
Instead, he claimed Kiplagat, while acting for another client, voluntarily interacted with Nyachoti & Company Advocates, shared draft pleadings and offered legal opinions in the matter.
Mr Kiuna further stated that none of the draft pleadings prepared by Dr Kiplagat were filed in court, as Nyachoti & Company Advocates retained full control of the litigation and prepared all pleadings filed on behalf of Maxam.
He acknowledged that Dr Kiplagat occasionally requested facilitation fees to enable him to review the voluminous court files and provide legal advice.
According to Mr Kiuna, Maxam Ltd made three ex gratia payments for that purpose, but the payments did not create an advocate-client relationship or amount to formal legal instructions.
He accused Okoth & Kiplagat of wrongly filing the advocate-client bill of costs based on a non-existent retainer.
In response, the law firm filed an affidavit exhibiting emails, WhatsApp messages, payment records, fee notes and other correspondence exchanged with Mr Kiuna over nearly eight years, which it says demonstrate a clear advocate-client relationship.
The firm contends that Dr Kiplagat advised and represented Maxam Ltd from the High Court through to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and that Mr Kiuna repeatedly acknowledged his role and made interim payments for legal services rendered.
According to the advocates, Dr Kiplagat’s engagement was deliberate and based on his expertise in similar commercial litigation.
The firm further states that on November 26, 2017, it issued Maxam Ltd with a deposit request note seeking Sh3.48 million for professional services, including taking instructions, reviewing pleadings and documents, attending meetings and preparing amended pleadings.
The advocates argue that the request was addressed directly to Maxam rather than Nyachoti & Company Advocates, demonstrating that the instructions came from the client. They further claim Dr Kiplagat was specifically retained to lead and guide Nyachoti & Company Advocates throughout the litigation.
