Nakumatt Holdings Limited to pay lawyer Sh9.7 million in legal fees

Nakumatt Holdings Limited has been ordered to pay Sh9.7 million to its lawyer for litigation services rendered in an eviction dispute that led to loss of properties, stock, business and profits.

Justice Lucas Naikuni ordered the supermarket, currently under insolvency, to pay Sh9,750,673.36 to Daniel Ngonze of Nogonze & Ngonze Advocates as advocate/client bill of cost.

Ngonze appealed the Sh700,000 awarded to him by the Taxing Master, R K Ogolla, on June, 11 2025.

Ngonze represented Nakumatt in numerous cases involving rent disputes with the landlord, Ideal Location Limited in Mombasa and South Coast Holdings Limited in Kwale County where the supermarket stood as an anchor tenant.

Ideal Location and South Coast Holding had evicted Nakumatt from the premises in Mombasa and Kwale in 2018 over disputed Sh27.8 and Sh32 million rent arrears, respectively, which allegedly led to loss of stock, furniture, fixtures, business and profits valued at Sh421,964,585.

Ngonze had billed for an advocate/client bill of Sh10 million but the Taxing Master gave him Sh700,000.

However, Justice Naikuni set aside the Sh700,000 bill of costs given to Ngonze by Ogolla and directed that a new Taxing Master determine afresh the advocate/client bill of cost while using the court’s calculation of Sh9,750,673.36. 

“That the total sum due under the corrected computation is a sum of Sh9,750,673.36.00 plus VAT, subject to any further adjustments on other items of the Bill of Costs,” said Justice Naikuni.

Justice Naikuni said that the Taxing Master’s disregard of the Sh421,964,585 that Nakumatt had pleaded in its suit against Ideal Location, a fact that amounted to a misdirection in principle.

“The award of sh.700,000 was manifestly low compared to the statutory computation of a sum of Sh6,500,000. The Taxing Officer erred in principle by failing to consider the pleaded value of a sum of Sh421,964,585,” said Justice Naikuni.

The judge noted that the instruction fees by Ngonze was based on the pleaded value of the suit properties of Sh421,964,585 which the court computed to yield instruction fees of a Sh6,529,468.77.

Also, Justice Naikuni said that the ‘getting-up fees’ rated at one-third of the instruction fees, amounted to Sh2,176,489.59.

He said Value Added Tax (VAT) was based at 16 per cent of the instruction fees, amounting to Sh1,044,715.00, all if which added to the total awarded to Ngonze.

The judge said that the value of the subject matter may be ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement by the parties.

He said that where the material before the Taxing Master is not sufficient to show the value of the subject matter, the Taxing Master will then apply his or her discretion in arriving at the instruction fees.

“In this regard, the discretion of the Taxing Master ought to be exercised judiciously by considering among other matters, the nature and importance of the suit, parties’ interest and other relevant matters,” said Justice Naikuni.

However, Nakumatt said the pleaded figures alone cannot determine instruction fees.

The Supermarket lawyer Ruguru Wairange said that the value of the subject matter was not ascertainable since the primary suit did not proceed to judgment or settlement.

Nakumatt said that the pleaded figures alone, without adoption in a judgment or settlement, cannot determine instruction fees.