Firm wants Sh60m for successfully defending President Uhuru Kenyatta

President Uhuru Kenyatta.

A Nairobi law firm is demanding Sh60.5 million as costs for successfully defending President Uhuru Kenyatta in a suit challenging his eligibility to run for the highest office last year.

Daly and Figgs Advocates wants Sh60,580,061 from three non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that had filed petitions in 2012 seeking to block Uhuru and his deputy William Ruto from holding public offices.

The three are International Centre for Policy and Conflict (ICPC), the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Kenya. The firm is demanding Sh20 million from each and another Sh338,000 to be shared among them.

This is in addition to another Sh76.8 million demanded from the same organisations by three law firms for defending the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) in the same cases in January, last year.

VA Nyambondi & Company Advocates is asking for Sh23.3 million, Sisule Munyi Kilonzo and Associates wants Sh33.5 million and Muriu Mungai and Co Advocates has demanded Sh20 million.

In their bills of cost filed at the High Court, the law firms argue they spent long hours on research and preparing for the cases.

• .

  Keep Reading

• 
  Uhuru and Raila skip Ogolla burial in Siaya
• 
  From Kibaki to Ruto: Scams that hit presidents in their first terms
• 
  Why that negative HIV test result could actually be positive
• 
  Why Kenyatta family remains magnetic amid Mt Kenya rivalry

The NGOs filed the high profile petitions in November 2012, seeking a declaration that the nomination of Uhuru and Ruto to contest the presidency would be a violation of the Constitution, following the confirmation of their charges by The Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC).

The bodies wanted IEBC barred from accepting their nomination. They named Uhuru, Ruto, the Attorney General and IEBC as respondents.

The petitions were consolidated and heard by a bench of five High Court judges. At the end of the proceedings, the judges ruled that they had no legal power to determine the cases since they were in regard to presidential elections which could only be determined by the Supreme Court.

They, however, ordered the organisations to pay costs of the petitions.

But the NGOs have appealed at the Court of Appeal seeking to have the bills rejected, arguing they should not be condemned to pay costs of cases filed in public interest.

ICPC Director Ndung'u Wainaina says the High Court should not have made such orders after ruling it had no legal authority to hear and determine the cases.

"The orders for costs were issued by a court that lacked jurisdiction and the same should not be entertained," Ndungu said.