[2023] KEELC 21033 (KLR)
The court found that the application for disqualification of Sheth & Wathigo Advocates was unopposed, as the plaintiff did not file any response or submissions. The court accepted the defendant's argument that the firm had acted for both parties in the negotiations and drafting of the tenancy agreement, giving rise...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 21033 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Elgon House (2010) Ltd; Defendant: Meya Agri Traders Ltd
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 121 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Disqualification of Counsel
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part; Sheth & Wathigo Advocates disqualified from acting for the plaintiff; pleadings not expunged; costs to the defendant.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Conflict of Interest, Advocate Disqualification, Tenancy Agreements, Advocate Client Confidentiality
- 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
Elgon House (2010) Ltd
Plaintiff
Meya Agri Traders Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Disqualification of Counsel
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the firm of Sheth & Wathigo Advocates should be disqualified from representing the plaintiff due to conflict of interest.
- 2 Whether pleadings filed by the said firm should be expunged from the court record.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for disqualification of Sheth & Wathigo Advocates was unopposed, as the plaintiff did not file any response or submissions. The court accepted the defendant's argument that the firm had acted for both parties in the negotiations and drafting of the tenancy agreement, giving rise to a real conflict of interest and risk of breach of confidentiality. The court held that disqualification was warranted to protect the integrity of the proceedings and advocate-client privilege. However, the court declined to expunge pleadings filed by the firm, finding that such a drastic measure was unnecessary and that the record could simply be handed over to new counsel....
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part; Sheth & Wathigo Advocates disqualified from acting for the plaintiff; pleadings not expunged; costs to the defendant.
Orders
- The firm of Sheth & Wathigo Advocates is disqualified from representing the plaintiff in this matter.
- The application to expunge pleadings filed by Sheth & Wathigo Advocates is declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Elgon House (2010) Ltd v Meya Agri Traders Ltd (Land Case 121 of 2018) [2023] KEELC 21033 (KLR) (26 October 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 21033 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Land Case 121 of 2018
FM Njoroge, J
October 26, 2023
Between
Elgon House (2010) Ltd
Plaintiff
and
Meya Agri Traders Ltd
Defendant
Ruling
1. By an application dated 5/7/2023 the defendant prays that the firm of Sheth & Wathigo Advocates and all other advocates practicing in the name of Sheth & Wathigo Advocates be disqualified from representing the plaintiff in this matter and that the pleading filed by that firm be expunged from the court record.
2. The grounds on which the application is made are that the firm representing the plaintiff is privy to matters relating to the suit therein for and against the defendant as it had represented the plaintiff and the defendant in the negotiations including drafting and signing of the tenancy agreement which gave rise to the suit. The applicant avers that there is therefore a conflict of interest that will prejudice it as the advocates seek to rely and use facts obtained during the negotiations in the present suit against the defendant in complete breach of advocate client confidentiality.
3. I have perused the court record and I have found no response from the respondent. The applicant also filed submissions as ordered by the court for the disposal of the application but the respondent did not.
4. The application is therefore unopposed and I therefore grant it in terms of prayer no 2 thereof.
5. As regards prayer no 3, I have not found any reasonable ground adduced to warrant such a drastic action. In this court’s view, the mere handing over of the record to any other counsel to handle would suffice; the need to send all the parties back to the drawing board regarding filing of pleadings and discovery will not therefore arise.
6. The costs of the application shall be borne by the plaintiff.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ON THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023. MWANGI NJOROGEJUDGE, ELC, MALINDI.