By Kepher Otieno - Reporter
Kenya, 12 January 2026 - The government has been dealt a stinging legal and political setback after the High Court in Nakuru froze the hiring of private lawyers by all public institutions, triggering shockwaves through ministries, State agencies and county governments that have long relied on costly external law firms.
The ruling has abruptly halted a practice that critics say has quietly drained billions of shillings from the public purse under the cover of “specialised legal services.”
A citizen-led petition placed the issue squarely before the court, arguing that the State cannot justify outsourcing legal work when it already maintains a fully funded legal bureaucracy — from the Attorney General and Solicitor General to State counsels, county attorneys and legal officers embedded across government.
The petitioners told the court that allowing parallel legal procurement is not only wasteful but structurally irrational, amounting to paying twice for the same service.
“It beats logic that despite the fact the public employs qualified attorneys, State counsels, county lawyers and legal officers, the same public entities still procure private advocates at exorbitant prices,” the petitioners argued, warning that this practice has become a gateway for unchecked expenditure and opaque contracts.
The judges were persuaded that the issue goes far beyond routine procurement and strikes at the heart of constitutional principles on prudent use of public funds.
In a sharply worded ruling, the court found that the petition raised serious questions about accountability, efficiency and legality, and that allowing the continued engagement of private law firms while the case is pending could lead to irreversible financial damage.
“A conservatory order is hereby issued suspending the engagement, procuring, continuing procurements and pending payments of private advocates and law firms by all public entities,” the judge ruled, adding that this would apply wherever government already has internal legal capacity.
Behind the court’s decision lies a deeper scandal that has been quietly simmering for years — the ballooning cost of external legal services in government. The petitioners pointed to recent high-profile transactions in which public agencies allegedly paid hundreds of millions of shillings to private lawyers for work that could have been handled in-house. One example cited was a controversial transaction involving a major State corporation, where legal fees reportedly ran into hundreds of millions despite the existence of a fully staffed government legal department.
“This is not about denying government access to justice,” the petitioners told the court.
More from Kenya
“It is about stopping the bleeding of public resources through unnecessary and inflated legal contracts.”
The ruling now puts a spotlight on what critics call a shadow legal economy operating within government, where lucrative briefs are quietly handed to select private firms while salaried public lawyers are sidelined.
For years, this system has raised questions about favoritism, kickbacks and the deliberate weakening of public institutions to justify outsourcing.
At KICC corridors, county headquarters and State agencies, the impact is already being felt.
Ongoing cases that depended on external advocates have been thrown into uncertainty, while pending payments worth millions have been frozen.
For government accounting officers, the ruling has created a sudden compliance minefield, as any violation could expose them to contempt of court.
The court has now set a date for the substantive hearing, meaning the government must defend not only its legal practices but also its broader philosophy on public spending.
Until then, the message from the bench is unmistakable: public money must be protected, and government must first use the lawyers it already pays before turning to expensive private firms.
What began as a technical legal challenge has now morphed into a powerful indictment of how the State does business — and if the petitioners ultimately prevail, it could permanently reshape how legal services are procured across Kenya’s public sector.
