[2024] KEELC 3988 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence of their financial incapacity to pay the decretal sum in a lump sum. The bank statement provided, showing only two deposits of Kshs. 10,000 each, was not considered a true reflection of the applicants' financial position, as it did not cover a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 3988 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: BM Mungata & Co Advocates; Respondent: Meshack Mutua Musau; Respondent: Rose Katile Mutua
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E044 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Payment of Decretal Sum by Instalments
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- A Nyukuri
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Execution of Decree, Instalment Payment Orders
- 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
BM Mungata & Co Advocates
Applicant
Meshack Mutua Musau
Respondent
Rose Katile Mutua
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Payment of Decretal Sum by Instalments
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated sufficient grounds to be allowed to settle the decretal sum by monthly instalments of Kshs. 10,000.
- 2 Whether the evidence provided by the applicants is adequate to prove inability to pay the decretal sum at once.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence of their financial incapacity to pay the decretal sum in a lump sum. The bank statement provided, showing only two deposits of Kshs. 10,000 each, was not considered a true reflection of the applicants' financial position, as it did not cover a sufficient period nor demonstrate the actual state of their business finances. The court held that allowing payment by instalments would unjustifiably delay satisfaction of the advocate's costs and would not serve the interests of justice, particularly as the advocate is also entitled to access to justice. Consequently, the application for payment by instalments was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 27th June 2023 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
BM Mungata & Co Advocates v Musau & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E044 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 3988 (KLR) (29 April 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 3988 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E044 of 2021
A Nyukuri, J
April 29, 2024
In The Matter Of Advocates Act And In The Matter Of Advocates-Client Bill Of Costs
Between
BM Mungata & Co Advocates
Applicant
and
Meshack Mutua Musau
1st Respondent
Rose Katile Mutua
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. The application before court is dated 27th June, 2023, filed by the respondents and seeks the following orders;a.Spentb.Spentc.That the applicants be allowed to satisfy the decree herein by monthly instalments of Kshs. 10,000. 00 with effect from 30th July, 2023 until full payment.d.That costs be provided for.
2. The application was based on grounds on the face of it and supported by the affidavit of Meshack Mutua Musau, one of the respondents. He deposed that the suit arose from the bill of costs in regard to ELC Appeal No. 23 of 2019 which was taxed at Kshs. 140,510/= and is in the same series with Miscellaneous Application Numbers 42 and 43 of 2021, which were taxed at Kshs. 220,810. 00 and Kshs. 231,107. 00 respectively, all totalling to Kshs. 592,427/=.
3. He alleged that they run a small cereal business with no stable income, and therefore cannot settle at once, the colossal amounts claimed by the respondent. He stated that they stood to suffer substantial loss and prejudice if the respondent proceeds with execution since they had not refused to pay but were only limited by their financial situation. He urged the court to exercise unfettered discretion to allow the application. He attached authority to swear and a bank statement showing two transactions made in March and June 2023 being deposits of Kshs. 10,000/= respectively.
4. The application was opposed. Brian Munyao advocate for the respondent swore a replying affidavit dated 17th July 2023. He stated that stay of execution of 30 days granted to the applicants lapsed. Further that the applicants willingly engaged a legal counsel with full knowledge of financial responsibilities. He averred that the respondents had tirelessly worked on the case, invested significant time, effort and resources to secure a favourable outcome. He further stated that the applicants did not object to the taxation and that the instant application is a deliberate delay tactic. It was their contention that the evidence by the applicants on their inability to pay was insufficient as the statement annexed was for an account that seemed to lack any transactions and the court ought to order for disclosure of full statements of account including Mpesa statements. He further deposed that allowing such application would jeopardize the financial stability of the legal profession as the same would be a bad precedent.
5. Counsel further deposed that it was contradictory for the applicants to claim financial struggles while at the same time engaging another firm of M. M. Uvyu & Company Advocates, a reputable and successful law firm. He urged the court to apply principles of fairness and justice and safeguard the integrity of the legal profession.
Analysis and determination 6. The court has carefully considered the application and the response. The sole issue for determination is whether the applicant has demonstrated that they deserve to be allowed to settle the decretal sum herein by monthly instalment of Kshs. 10,000/=.
7. Article 48 of the Constitution provides for the right to access to justice. Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act grants this court the power to make orders in the interests of justice. In the instant matter, the respondent advocate bill of costs was taxed on 15th December 2022 in the sum of Kshs. 140,510/=. To date the applicant has not paid any part of the said amount. Having considered the applicant’s bank statement which contain two deposits of Kshs. 10,000/= each made in March and June 2023 respectively, I am not convinced that that bank statement is a true reflection of the applicant’s financial position as they have not shown their financial position before 2023 and it is improbable that a business account would ordinarily operate like a salary account where a fixed amount of Kshs. 10,000/= is deposited every month. A sample of two months is not sufficient to demonstrate the applicant’s financial position. Allowing the application would mean that the applicant would take 14 months to settle the decretal amount, which in my view would be unjustifiable and a denial of the right to access to justice, which the advocate is entitled to.
8. In the premises, I find no merit in the application dated 27th June 2023, and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
9. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MACHAKOS VIRTUALLY THIS 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS VIDEO CONFERENCING PLATFORMA. NYUKURIJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Ngure for respondentsMs. Mutuku holding brief for Mr. MutavaCourt assistant – Abdisalam