[2009] KEHC 2419 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff did not instruct his lawyers to accept £19,500 in full and final settlement of his claim for £59,500. The correspondence showed the plaintiff's consistent demand for the full amount and his explicit objection to the lawyers' acceptance of a reduced sum. The court held that a client...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 2419 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Alarakhia Khamisa Aloo; Applicant: Fatmabai Alarakhia Aloo; Respondent: L.J. Manghnani T/A Sachdeva & Company Advocates
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 71 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent
- Judges
- JV Juma
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Suit, Authority of Advocate, Client Instructions, Settlement of Claims
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alarakhia Khamisa Aloo
Applicant
Fatmabai Alarakhia Aloo
Applicant
L.J. Manghnani T/A Sachdeva & Company Advocates
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's suit should be struck out on the basis that their advocates accepted a reduced sum in full and final settlement without the plaintiff's instructions.
- 2 Whether a client is bound by the actions of their advocate when those actions are contrary to explicit instructions.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff's additional claim for Kshs. 4,178,000 remains outstanding.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff did not instruct his lawyers to accept £19,500 in full and final settlement of his claim for £59,500. The correspondence showed the plaintiff's consistent demand for the full amount and his explicit objection to the lawyers' acceptance of a reduced sum. The court held that a client cannot be bound by the actions of an advocate acting contrary to instructions. Additionally, the plaintiff had an outstanding claim for Kshs. 4,178,000 that was not addressed by the defendant. Dismissing the suit at this stage would prejudice the plaintiff's right to be heard. The application to strike out the suit was therefore dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent
Orders
- The application to strike out the suit is dismissed in its entirety.
- Costs awarded to the plaintiff/respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA
Civil Case 71 of 2008
ALARAKHIA KHAMISA ALOO ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1ST APPLICANT
FATMABAI ALARAKHIA ALOO ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2ND APPLICANT
VERSUS
L.J. MANGHNANI
T/A SACHDEVA & COMPANY ADVOCATES :::::::::::: RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
This is the Defendant/Respondent application dated 4. 9.2008 seeking that the Plaintiff/Respondent suit be struck out with costs. Mr. Omollo for the Defendant/Respondent argues that the Plaintiff claim was settled in full by a payment of £19,500 to his lawyers. This sum he argues was received and accepted by the lawyers in full andfinal settlement of the Plaintiff claim and as such the present suit ought to be dismissed as having since accepted this sum the Plaintiff is estopped from making any further claim against the Defendant. The initial demand was for a sum of £100. 000. A sum of £40,500. 00 was paid out to the Plaintiff leaving the balance of £59,500. 00 which forms the subject of this present suit. Mr. Omollo for the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff lawyers on record at the time did accept £19,500 in full and final settlement for a claim of £59,500. 00. This is indeed strange. Did the Plaintiff instruct his lawyers to accept this reduced amount in full and final settlement of his claim. Clearly not. The Plaintiff did on 13th March 2008 write to his advocates Mutisya Bosire & Company and declared himself “shocked” by their actions (letter marked LJM”7”). Clearly if the Plaintiff lawyers chose to accept a reduced sum it was not upon the instructions of the Plaintiff himself. Mr. Omollo for Defendant argues that the Plaintiff is bound by the actions of his lawyers and therefore is bound to forgo his claim for the full £59,500. The court cannot see how this can be. It is the client who instructs the lawyer and not the other way round. A lawyer who acts contrary to the wishes and/or instructions of his client cannot be deemed to have bound his client by such actions. Who was this lawyer acting for? From the annexed correspondence it is clear that the Plaintiff demand was at all times for £59,500 and at no time did he indicate in writing or instruct his lawyer to accept £19,500. 00 in full settlement. The Plaintiff claim in his Originating Summons filed in court on 28th March 2008 was £59,500. As such his claim remains outstanding.
Furthermore court notes from the correspondence annexed to the replying affidavit specifically vide a letter dated 23rd November 2007 from the Plaintiff advocates written to the Defendant the Plaintiff had an additional claim of Kshs.4,178,000 which claim has not been addressed by Mr. Omollo in his submissions to this court. All in all this court observes that the Plaintiff deserves his day in court and an opportunity to ventilate his case. To dismiss the suit at this point would be to prejudice the Plaintiff pursuit of justice. The court rules that this application is not convincing and lacks merit. It is dismissed in its entirety with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 27th day of May 2009.
M. ODERO
JUDGE
Read in open court
Mr. Mokaya for Plaintiff/Respondent
No appearance by Defendant/Applicant