Kenyan beer tycoon Ngugi Kiuna fails to block $1.5 million legal fee claim in Heineken case

A Kenyan tycoon known for winning a marathon courtroom battle against a global brewer now finds himself defending against a bill from lawyers who say they helped him do it.

Businessman Ngugi Kiuna has failed in his attempt to stop a law firm from pursuing more than $1.5 million (KSh 189.2 million) in legal fees tied to its alleged role in his long-running dispute with Dutch beer giant Heineken. The High Court declined to halt taxation proceedings launched by Okoth and Kiplagat Advocates, ruling that Kiuna's objections should be resolved by the court handling the advocate-client bill of costs.

The decision, delivered on July 2, leaves the fee claim alive and moving forward. The firm is seeking KSh 189,232,603 for legal services it says it rendered to Maxam Ltd, Kiuna's company, during litigation that flowed from Heineken's termination of a distributorship agreement. The court held that the issues Kiuna raised could be put before the Deputy Registrar, who would decide whether to refer the matter to a judge before taxation or await any reference afterward.

At the core of the fight is a simple but consequential question: was there ever a formal lawyer-client relationship? Kiuna insists there was not. He told the court he met advocate Ken Kiplagat in 2017 through a longtime friend and discussed the possibility of Kiplagat's firm working alongside his own lawyers, Nyachoti and Company Advocates, by sharing strategy in the Heineken case. That arrangement, he said, never formalized.

According to Kiuna, his advocates declined any deal that would have seen the two firms jointly represent Maxam. He argued that Kiplagat, while acting for another client, voluntarily interacted with his legal team, shared draft pleadings and offered opinions, but that none of those draft documents were ever filed. His lawyers, he maintained, retained full control of the litigation and prepared everything submitted on Maxam's behalf.

He did acknowledge some payments. Kiuna said Maxam made three ex gratia payments to allow Kiplagat to review voluminous court files and provide advice, but he argued those payments did not create a retainer or amount to formal instructions. He accused the firm of filing an advocate-client bill of costs built on a relationship that never existed.

The law firm tells a very different story. It filed an affidavit exhibiting emails, WhatsApp messages, payment records, fee notes and other correspondence exchanged with Kiuna over nearly eight years, material it says demonstrates a clear advocate-client relationship. The firm contends that Kiplagat advised and represented Maxam from the High Court through the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and that Kiuna repeatedly acknowledged his role and made interim payments along the way.

The firm also pointed to a specific paper trail. It said that in November 2017 it issued Maxam a deposit request seeking KSh 3.48 million for professional services, including taking instructions, reviewing pleadings and preparing amended documents. Because the request went directly to Maxam rather than to Nyachoti and Company Advocates, the firm argued, the instructions plainly came from the client.

The backdrop to the fee fight is one of Kenya's most closely watched commercial cases. Kiuna founded Maxam in 2006 to distribute Heineken beer, and when the brewer terminated that arrangement in 2016, he sued. He won an award of roughly $13 million (KSh 1.7 billion), a result upheld through the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court after years of litigation, cementing his reputation as a businessman willing to take a multinational the full distance.

Kiuna is a familiar figure in Kenyan boardrooms. He previously chaired industrial gas company BOC Kenya, where he remains one of the largest shareholders, and was among the founder members of investment firm TransCentury. He built his career over decades in consumer goods, including a long stint running an industrial hygiene business, before turning to distribution and the legal battles that have since defined much of his public profile.

The Heineken saga has continued to generate offshoots even after the main award was settled, including a separate dispute over interest added to the payout. The fee claim now adds another layer, turning the spotlight from the money Kiuna won to the cost of the representation that helped secure it.

The immediate effect of the ruling is procedural but real. By refusing to stop the taxation process, the court has ensured that the question of whether Kiuna owes the fees will be examined on its merits rather than shut down at the outset. That leaves him facing a contest he had hoped to avoid, this time as the party resisting a bill rather than pursuing one.

How much, if anything, Kiuna ultimately pays will now be decided in the taxation of costs.