Kenya: Court Rejects Ecobank's Bid to Appeal Sh103mn Advocate Fee Dispute

Nairobi — The Supreme Court of Kenya has dismissed an application from Ecobank Kenya Limited. The bank wanted to escalate a dispute over advocate fees to the apex court. The court ruled that the matter does not involve issues of general public importance as required by the Constitution.

This decision is part of a long legal battle between Ecobank and Macharia Mwangi & Njeru Advocates. They are disputing a legal fee of Sh103.4 million. Chief Justice Martha Koome, along with four other judges, delivered the ruling. They found that this dispute is a private commercial issue already resolved in lower courts.

The Supreme Court stated that the case's issues were specific and did not meet constitutional standards for "general public importance." The bench noted, "The applicant has not shown how this decision affects public interest." Disagreements among judges do not automatically make a case nationally significant unless it impacts the general public or legal framework.

The dispute began when Ecobank hired Macharia Mwangi & Njeru Advocates to recover a $228 million (Sh2.9 billion) debt from Hashi Energy Limited. The law firm issued statutory notices but did not take further recovery action. Their bill was initially taxed at Sh43.6 million but later increased to over Sh103 million due to accrued interest.

Ecobank contested this taxation, claiming the costs were excessive given the limited work done by the firm. They appealed to the High Court, which agreed with Ecobank and ruled that the bill had been wrongly taxed. However, in December 2023, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision.

Justices Omondi and Ngenye-Macharia held that the taxing master acted within legal bounds. Justice M'inoti dissented, stating there should be an agreement between Ecobank and the law firm before charging a percentage of debt recovery costs. Following this, Ecobank sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that significant legal questions arise from this case with broader implications for both the public and legal profession.