The Environment and Land Court in Mombasa has ordered the County Executive Committee Member for Finance to pay more than KSh2.7 million to a law firm over unpaid legal fees, concluding a dispute that dates back to 2021.
According to court documents, Miller & Company Advocates was contracted in November 2021 to represent the County Government of Mombasa in a land-related petition. The firm later withdrew from the case citing lack of further instructions before submitting its legal fee bill.
The fees remained unpaid, prompting the firm to file a bill of costs. On 22 January 2025, the court taxed the bill at KSh2,721,861.36 and issued a certificate of costs, which was later adopted as a court judgment.
Despite a certificate of order against the government being issued and served in September 2025, the county failed to settle the amount. The county opposed enforcement, arguing that only the finance CECM has authority to approve payments and that the amount had not been budgeted for in the current financial year.
Court ruling and enforcement
In its decision, the court directed that the full amount be paid together with interest at 14% per annum from 22 January 2025 until full settlement.
The county also cited provisions of the Public Finance Management Act, arguing that payment required inclusion in a future budget approved by the County Assembly. However, the court dismissed the objections, ruling that service through the Office of the County Attorney was valid and that the debt was not disputed.
The court further noted that no appeal had been filed and that the county had made no effort to settle the amount.
A mandamus order was issued compelling the finance CECM to pay the debt, with the judge emphasizing that government entities are not subject to ordinary execution proceedings and that the finance office has a statutory duty to settle such obligations.
Other county officials named in the case were cleared, with the court finding they bear no legal responsibility for payment.
In a partial reprieve, the court suspended enforcement of the order until 1 July, allowing time for the county to make budgetary provisions.
Additionally, the court declined to award legal costs, directing each party to bear its own expenses.