Suit thrown out as Kibunguchy lawyers clash over legal fees

Likuyani MP Enoch Kibunguchy in his response maintained he paid Sh1.2 million as agreed in a retainer agreement. [Standard]

The High Court has struck out a bill of costs filed by a lawyer seeking over Sh3 million from an MP after the court was told that another lawyer was paid.

While ruling on the case, Judge William Musyoka said although the two lawyers appeared for one client, there was no way he could incur double costs.

The battle has split two lawyers who represented Likuyani MP Enoch Kibunguchy in a petition arising from 2017 General Election with one lawyer claiming her colleague never gave her a single penny in the rigorous exercise.

Lawyer Diana Githuku of Githuku and Githuku Company Advocates, moved to court, seeking Sh3 million from the MP as legal fees for representing him.

In her court papers, she says she represented Mr Kibunguchy alongside lawyer Peter Wena in the petition filed by Evans Taracha after losing in a parliamentary election.

However, the MP in his response maintained he paid Sh1.2 million to Mr Wena as agreed in a retainer agreement.

Wena is reported to have told the MP that he had resigned from Miller and Company Advocate but would represent him through another law.

Wena is said to have approached Ms Githuku to co-represent the MP but with him as the lead counsel and that all monies to be paid through him.

Wena said he appeared in all court sessions to the judgment day while his colleague appeared only four times during the hearing.

He said the client paid all the money as agreed adding that the written retainer agreement between him and the MP supersedes oral agreement purportedly entered into between Githuku and the MP.

Justice Musyoka ruled that though Githuku contended the agreement was fabricated, she could not prove this thus the agreement was binding.

“From the evidence on record, the respondent (MP) was not privy to any internal arrangement between the two advocates. They were acting for a client under the umbrella of the Applicant’s (Githuku’s) firm which was not a matter of concern as long as he paid the legal fees in full as provided for in the retainer agreement,” said Justice Musyoka.

He maintained that the respondent cannot pay above the legal fees agreed to add that if Githuku had any claim, he ought to demand from Wena.

“In light of the foregoing, I find the application by the client is merited. The effect is that the advocate-client bill of cost filed by the applicant is struck out,” he said.

The judge directed each party to meet its own cost of the application.