Payments to Kithi & Company Advocates, associated with advocate George Kithi have continued to raffle feathers at City,with an MCA now demanding for a review of all the payments made to the law firm.
Existing records raise questions about the basis on which legal fees were calculated, the documentation available to auditors and the assessment of advocates’ bills in relation to payments made to Kithi’s law firm.
It all started with the Auditor-General’s examination of Nairobi City County’s expenditure for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 financial years, alongside a separate High Court dispute involving Kithi & Company Advocates in 2025.
These records provide a basis for examining the firm’s legal-fee dealings with City Hall where legislators at the county are readinging mischief.
The KSh 23.4 million payment
Information from the County Assembly Public Accounts Committee’s report on the Auditor-General’s findings for the 2015/16 financial year,identifies a payment of KSh 23,436,600 to Kithi & Company Advocates in connection with Sound Equipment Limited v City Council of Nairobi and Others, Petition No. 775 of 2015.
According to the committee report, Sound Equipment Limited filed its petition in August 2014. Nairobi City County was served and subsequently instructed Kithi & Company Advocates to defend its interests.
The report states that the pleadings referred to a project cost of approximately KSh 330 million. The property in question, LR No. 209/12184, was situated along Lower Kabete Road in Kibarage Valley, Nairobi.
The committee’s report also records that the petitioner withdrew its petition against Nairobi City County on August 30, 2016.
The payment attracted scrutiny because the Auditor-General questioned the documentation used to support the property valuation on which the legal fees were calculated. The audit records referred to a property value of KSh 358 million and noted that supporting valuation documents had not been provided for audit review.
“This left an important question unanswered: could the county demonstrate, using the relevant valuation documents and fee calculations, that the amount paid was properly assessed or their was unnecessary speed to fix dubious payments,” Nominated MCA Ashlin Mohamed questioned.
While the withdrawal of a case does not automatically mean that an advocate is not entitled to fees,reports at City Hall indicate that very minimal legal work had been undertaken.
A separate entry appears in the Auditor-General’s report for the 2016/17 financial year.
The report lists Kithi & Company Advocates in connection with a payment of KSh 20,426,600 relating to litigation involving Halima Dafara Gole, David Kamari, Pinnacle Properties and Nairobi City County.
The auditor questioned how the county arrived at the legal fee, raising concerns about the amount payable in light of the circumstances described in the report.
The issue was not simply that the amount was large. It was whether the county had established a sufficient basis for paying the fee and whether the calculation reflected the relevant circumstances of the litigation.
” We need to establish the final position, the county’s supporting records, its response to the audit query and any subsequent determination would need to be examined,
The entries involving Kithi & Company Advocates appeared during a period when Nairobi City County’s legal expenditure was attracting broader scrutiny.
In February 2019,the County Assembly Public Accounts Committee questioned legal expenditure, including payments made without adequate supporting documentation.
The report listed KSh 20.4 million associated with Kithi & Company Advocates among payments requiring scrutiny.
The county’s acting legal and finance officials reportedly explained that some expenditure arose from court orders, warrants of arrest and garnishee orders against county accounts.
A more recent record involving the firm is the High Court case Kithi & Company Advocates v Nairobi County Government, Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2020.
In a ruling delivered on October 16, 2025, the firm challenged a taxing officer’s assessment of its bill of costs dated February 13, 2020.
The firm argued that the amount allowed was too low in light of the complexity and value of the matter.
The dispute concerned the legal assessment of the firm’s fees, rather than a finding that the firm had improperly received public money.
The High Court dismissed the application, finding no demonstrated error of principle that justified interfering with the taxing officer’s decision. The firm did not obtain the revision it sought and the application was dismissed with costs.
The ruling is important because it demonstrates that legal fees claimed by advocates are subject to formal assessment and judicial review.
A law firm’s claim does not automatically become the final amount payable merely because it has submitted a bill.
The records concerning Kithi & Company Advocates raise several questions that merit a documented response from Nairobi City County.
First, did the county subsequently provide the valuation documents that auditors said were missing in relation to the KSh 23.4 million payment?
Second, what explanation did the county provide for the KSh 20.426 million entry, and was the audit query eventually resolved?
Third, were the payments supported by letters of instruction, fee notes, the applicable remuneration calculations and the relevant approvals?
Fourth, what was the final outcome of the county’s internal review of these transactions, and were any adjustments, recoveries or other remedial measures undertaken?
George Kithi’s firm appears in Nairobi City County’s historical legal-expenditure records in connection with two substantial payments: KSh 23,436,600 in the Sound Equipment litigation and KSh 20,426,600 in a separate matter.
The Auditor-General raised questions about the basis and supporting documentation for these fees. Years later, the firm was also involved in a separate High Court dispute over the assessment of a bill of costs, an application the court dismissed in October 2025
