[2023] KEHC 27224 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 27224 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent, an advocate, received the decretal sum of Kshs 644,420 on behalf of the applicant but failed to remit it. The applicant provided evidence of payment via cheques and established her entitlement to the funds. The respondent did not defend the claim or provide any justification for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 27224 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Hassani Omari Doshi (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Said Hassani Dosho - Deceased); Respondent: Tarus Joseph t/a Tarus & Co. Advocates
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous E140 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; respondent ordered to remit decretal sum with interest; no order as to costs.
Judges
DKN Magare
Legal Topics
Advocate Client Funds, Accounting of Judgment Sum, Remittance of Decretal Sum, Interest on Decretal Sum
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Advocate Client Funds Accounting of Judgment Sum Remittance of Decretal Sum Interest on Decretal Sum

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hassani Omari Doshi (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Said Hassani Dosho - Deceased)

Applicant

Tarus Joseph t/a Tarus & Co. Advocates

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondent advocate is obliged to render an account and remit the judgment sum received on behalf of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interest on the decretal sum from the date of payment until settlement.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs and further interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, an advocate, received the decretal sum of Kshs 644,420 on behalf of the applicant but failed to remit it. The applicant provided evidence of payment via cheques and established her entitlement to the funds. The respondent did not defend the claim or provide any justification for withholding the money. The court held that an advocate has a fiduciary duty to account for and promptly remit client funds. The applicant was also entitled to interest on the decretal sum from 1/8/2021 at court rates, given the date of payment and the absence of any defence. However, the court declined to award costs, noting the matter was undefended. The court could not...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; respondent ordered to remit decretal sum with interest; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed to forthwith honour and remit the sum of Kshs 644,420.00 paid to them on behalf of the applicant being the decretal sum in Mariakani SPMCC No 359 of 2018.
  • The above amount shall attract interest at court rates from 1/8/2021 till payment in full.