Thange River Basin Resident’s Association (Suing on behalf of the Residents of River Thange Basin, Kibwezi Makueni County & 44 others v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition 15 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 1902 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a law firm can keep a former client's documents until its unpaid legal fees are settled.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether this court should make an order compelling the firm of Maanzo & Co. to deliver the documents which the Applicants are seeking
Key legal issues
#Whether the court should compel Maanzo & Co. Advocates to release the clients' documents after withdrawal of instructions
The application was dismissed; the advocates retain a lien over the documents until their costs are paid
The court accepted that the attorney-client relationship had irretrievably broken down and instructions had been withdrawn in writing. However, it balanced the applicants' right to representation of their choice against the advocate's right to remuneration. Relying on Boot Extrusions, the court held the firm has a retaining lien over documents in its possession until costs are paid. Since the firm had already filed an advocate/client bill of costs yet to be taxed, compelling release would defeat that lien, so the application lacked merit.
Legal principles established
#- An advocate who has acted for a client who has withdrawn instructions is entitled to his costs, and has a general retaining lien over the client's documents until costs are paid
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicants' application is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- not stated in judgment
Relief refused
#Order compelling Maanzo & Co. Advocates to deliver all pleadings, title deeds, claim forms and other documents
The advocates have a retaining lien over the documents until their advocate/client costs, which are yet to be taxed, are paid
Costs of the application by the Applicants
Application found to be devoid of merit and dismissed with costs to the Respondent
Costs
The same is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
As was clearly stated in the case of Boot Extrusions (supra) the firm of Maanzo & Co. Advocates have alien over the documents held by them until their costs are paid.
I find that the Applicants’ application is devoid of merit. The same is dismissed with costs to the Respondent. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#Date of further affidavit appears as '25th July, 2205', an evident typographical error for 2025
Judgment does not state the court or case number of the petition in which the Originating Summons was filed
The firm name is inconsistently rendered as 'Muriithi S. Kiragu & Co. Advocates' and 'Muriithi S. Kirageu & Co. Advocates'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Thange River Basin Resident’s Association (Suing on behalf of the Residents of River Thange Basin, Kibwezi Makueni County & 44 others v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition 15 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 1902 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Originating Summons dated 19th May, 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1902/eng@2026-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.