[2009] KEHC 51 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was duly instructed by the respondent to represent him and that the respondent failed to pay legal fees after release from civil jail. The court was satisfied that motor vehicle KRK 882 was given to the applicant as security for his fees, rejecting the respondent's contention that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 51 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Chegenye Daniel Chitwah T/A D.C. Chitwah & Co. Advocates; Respondent: John Mukeya Kitiabi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 77 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Restraining Orders
- Outcome
- application granted
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Security for Legal Fees, Possession of Property
- 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
Chegenye Daniel Chitwah T/A D.C. Chitwah & Co. Advocates
Applicant
John Mukeya Kitiabi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Restraining Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to restraining orders preventing the respondent from taking possession of motor vehicle KRK 882 pending taxation of costs.
- 2 Whether the motor vehicle was validly given as security for legal fees owed to the applicant.
- 3 Whether the respondent or his agent has a right to reclaim the vehicle before settlement of the applicant's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was duly instructed by the respondent to represent him and that the respondent failed to pay legal fees after release from civil jail. The court was satisfied that motor vehicle KRK 882 was given to the applicant as security for his fees, rejecting the respondent's contention that the vehicle was taken for a test drive or that it did not belong to him. The court held that it has the power to grant the restraining orders sought under the Civil Procedure Act, and that the applicant is entitled to retain possession of the vehicle pending taxation and payment of his fees. The respondent may substitute the vehicle with another security of equal value if...
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- The motor vehicle registration No. KRK 882 shall remain in the possession of the applicant pending the taxation of the applicant’s bill of costs and payment of the taxed costs.
- The respondent is at liberty to apply and substitute the motor vehicle herein with another security of equal value.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT KAKAMEGA
Miscellaneous Civil Application 77 of 2009
CHEGENYE DANIEL CHITWAH
T/A D.C. CHITWAH & CO. ADVOCATES ………………….. APPLICANT
V E R S U S
JOHN MUKEYA KITIABI ……………………….………… RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
In his application dated 2nd July, 2009 the applicant is seeking orders restraining the respondent or his agents from taking possession of motor vehicle No. KRK 882, Mercedes Benz 200.
The applicant contends that he was instructed by the respondent to file an appeal on his behalf after the respondent had been committed to civil jail by the lower court. The applicant filed High Court Civil Appeal No.39 of 2009 on behalf of the respondent and contends that since the respondent was in custody, he authorized his son, one Sospeter Shole Kitiabi to give him Motor vehicle No. KRK 882 as security for his fees. The respondent was released from civil jail but has refused to pay the fees prompting the applicant to file his bill of costs that is pending taxation.
Mr. Anziya, counsel for the respondent opposed the application. Counsel relied on the affidavit of the respondent sworn on6th July, 2009and that of Sospeter shole Kitiabi sworn on6th July, 2009. Although the applicant urged the court to expunge the later affidavit. I do not find any good reason for doing so as the applicant in his supporting affidavit has averred that he went to the respondent’s residence at Lurambi in the company of one Shole, who I presume to be the deponent of that affidavit. The deponent is aware about the dispute and is competent to swear the affidavit.
The application herein is brought under sections 3, 3A, 63 (b)and(e) and Order L rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Act. The respondent herein admits that he instructed the applicant to represent him. His only contention is that the vehicle in question does not belong to him. He has annexed a copy of aSaleagreement showing that the vehicle belongs to Sospeter Shole Kitiabi who according to the applicant is the respondent’s son. Sospeter Shole Kitiabi has sworn an affidavit contending that the applicant intended to buy the vehicle and took it from him for test drive.
From the submissions herein, it is clear that the respondent instructed the applicant to represent him when he had been committed to civil jail. It is also clear that the respondent did not pay the applicant any legal fees. I am also satisfied that the motor vehicle number KRK 882 was given to the applicant as security. Sospeter Shole does not state in his affidavit when the applicant took the vehicle for test drive and when the negotiations to purchase the vehicle started.
It is unfortunate that the respondent could not settle the applicant’s fees amicably after he was released from prison. It does not matter whether the case was argued or parties recorded a consent.
Sections 3, 3A and 63of the Civil Procedure Act empowers this court to grant the orders being sought. The applicant’s bill of costs is pending taxation. I do order that the motor vehicle registration No. KRK 882 shall remain in the possession of the applicant pending the taxation of the applicant’s bill of costs and payment of the taxed costs. The respondent is at liberty to apply and substitute the motor vehicle herein with another security of equal value.
In the end the application dated2nd July, 2009is granted as prayed. The respondent shall meet the costs of the application.
Delivered, Dated and Signed at Kakamega this 12th day of November, 2009
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
J U D G E