[2000] KEHC 272 (KLR)
The court found that the advocate-client relationship between Oraro and Rachier Advocates and the 1st and 2nd defendants had effectively ended, as evidenced by correspondence and the defendants' own instructions to freeze further legal action. Since the defendants did not file a notice of change of advocate or a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 272 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Doris Nyambura Kariuki; Defendant: D. Gathecha; Applicant: Oraro and Rachier Advocates
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1775 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application by Advocates to Cease Acting
- Outcome
- application granted
- Legal Topics
- Change of Advocate, Leave to Cease Acting, Client Advocate Relationship
- 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
Doris Nyambura Kariuki
Plaintiff
D. Gathecha
Defendant
Oraro and Rachier Advocates
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application by Advocates to Cease Acting
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the firm of Oraro and Rachier Advocates should be granted leave to cease acting for the 1st and 2nd defendants.
- 2 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants have valid grounds to oppose the application without filing a replying affidavit as required by the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the advocate-client relationship between Oraro and Rachier Advocates and the 1st and 2nd defendants had effectively ended, as evidenced by correspondence and the defendants' own instructions to freeze further legal action. Since the defendants did not file a notice of change of advocate or a replying affidavit to oppose the application as required by the Civil Procedure Rules, the firm had no alternative but to seek leave of the court to cease acting. The court held that the application was properly brought and granted the advocates leave to cease acting for the 1st and 2nd defendants.
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- The application dated 31/10/2000 by Oraro and Rachier Advocates for leave to cease acting for the 1st and 2nd defendants is granted.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1775 OF 1998
DORIS NYAMBURA KARIUKI………………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
D.GATHECHA & 6 OTHERS ………………………DEFENDANT
RULING
By its application dated 31st October, 2000, the firm of Oraro and Rachier Advocates applies for leave of the court to cease acting for the 1st and 2nd applicants. Although the 1st and 2nd applicants appear to oppose the application, it is not clear to me on what basis they can do this. It is to be noted they have not filed any replying affidavit as required by order L.Rule 16 (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
What he says is that he terminated any legal relationship he may have had with the applicants as far as back as August 2000 and that the applicants acceded to such arrangements. The record shows that the firm of Rachier & Co. Advocates filed a Notice of Appointment of Advocates dated 1/8/2000 effectively taking over the conduct of this case on behalf of the 1st and 2nd defendant who were hitherto acting in person. In the one week between that date and the 17th of August 2000, bad blood seems to have developed between the firms and the 1st defendant as by a letter of this date, he accused the firm of acting contrary and in opposition to the defendant best interest and categorically warned the firm against “making any move or writing or moving the court in any way whatsoever regarding this matter” The Defendant described the instructions fully frozen until further Notice. In the event the further notice never came.
This letter was promptly acknowledged by the firm by its letter dated 8th August 2000, asking the defendant to collect his files, subject to payment of the firms fees.
I am satisfied from the foregoing that a client advocate relationship did and still exists between the firm and the respondents/ defendants. As no judgment or decree has been obtained in this matter, and as the defendant did not take advantage of the provisions of Order III of the Rules which allow them to file a Notice of change of advocate (see order III Rule 12 (I) the firm was left with little option but to apply the same jurisdiction and make this application. I find the application well recited and the only way that the firm could have moved. The application dated 31/10/2000 is accordingly granted. I make no order as to costs.
C.K. NJAI
PRINCIPAL DEPUTY REGISTRAR
22/11/2000
Court: Ruling delivered 1st & 2nd Defendant Present
Mr. Macharia for Applicant
C.K. NJAI
PRINCIPAL DEPUTY REGISTRAR.
22/11/200