[2012] KEHC 684 (KLR)
The court found that although the third appellant, Farida Omar Mahendan, had repeatedly stated her lack of interest in the appeal, she had not formally withdrawn. The court required her to make a categorical statement before the court to effectuate her withdrawal. Upon her formal withdrawal, the issue of conflict of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 684 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Ferruz Omar Maghram; Appellant: Malkia Omar Mahendan; Appellant: Farida Omar Mahendan; Appellant: Anzun Omar Mahendan; Appellant: Nuru Omar Mahendan; Respondent: Ahmed Mohamed Honey
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 15 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Ruling on Party Status and Representation
- Outcome
- Third appellant's appeal withdrawn; directions given for further conduct of the application.
- Judges
- CW Meoli
- Legal Topics
- Party Withdrawal, Conflict of Interest, Legal Representation
- 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
Ferruz Omar Maghram
Appellant
Malkia Omar Mahendan
Appellant
Farida Omar Mahendan
Appellant
Anzun Omar Mahendan
Appellant
Nuru Omar Mahendan
Appellant
Ahmed Mohamed Honey
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Ruling on Party Status and Representation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the third appellant, Farida Omar Mahendan, remains a party to the appeal despite her stated lack of interest.
- 2 Whether it is a conflict of interest for Mr. Mazrui to act for both the third appellant and the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the third appellant, Farida Omar Mahendan, had repeatedly stated her lack of interest in the appeal, she had not formally withdrawn. The court required her to make a categorical statement before the court to effectuate her withdrawal. Upon her formal withdrawal, the issue of conflict of interest regarding Mr. Mazrui's representation would be resolved. If she chose to proceed, she would need to engage separate counsel to avoid any conflict. The court thus recognized the necessity of formal withdrawal for clarity of party status and to uphold the ethical standards regarding legal representation.
Court Disposition
Third appellant's appeal withdrawn; directions given for further conduct of the application.
Orders
- The third appellant, Farida Omar Mahendan, is deemed to have withdrawn her appeal.
- The application filed on 28th June, 2012 shall be heard by written submissions, starting with the applicant within ten days and the respondent within ten days of service.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Malindi
Civil Case 15 of 2011 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; text-autospace:ideograph-other; font-size:12. 0pt;"Liberation Serif","serif";} </style> <![endif]
FERRUZ OMAR MAGHRAM
MALKIA OMAR MAHENDAN
FARIDA OMAR MAHENDAN
ANZUN OMAR MAHENDAN
NURU OMAR MAHENDAN ……………………….APPELLANTS
VERSUS
AHMED MOHAMED HONEY ……………………RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. Regarding the question that has arisen as to whether the third appellant Farida Omar Mahendan is a party in this appeal and whether it constitutes a conflict of interest for Mr. Mazrui to act for her as well as the respondent, I have perused the record in light of the submissions made.
2. On 19th July, 2011 before Omondi J. the said 3rd Appellant stated: “I am not interested in the appeal.”
This sentiment has been recorded severally during these proceedings. As such it is irregular for her to purport to continue to participate in the proceedings. The question that needs to be answered clearly is this: Has the 3rd appellant withdrawn her appeal? Technically, she has not. And so I place a choice before her to categorically state before this court that she has withdrawn the appeal. Hence the question of her representation will be resolved.
If the 3rd appellant elects to proceed with the appeal, it will behove her to engage the services of a different counsel from Mr. Mazrui to obviate the possibility of conflict of interest on the party of Mr. Mazrui.
Ruling delivered and signed this 1st day of November, 2012 in the presence of Mr. Otara for the Appellants, Mr. Mazrui for the Respondent.
C. W. Meoli
JUDGE
3RD APPELLANT
I had agreed with kadhi's decision and I have no interest in the appeal.
C. W. Meoli
JUDGE
COURT – Appeal by 3rd appellant now withdrawn.
C. W. Meoli
JUDGE
FURTHER ORDER
Let the application filed on 28th June, 2012 be heard by written submissions as agreed by Counsel starting with applicant's submissions in ten days and respondent after ten (10) days of service. Mention on 3rd December, 2012 to take ruling date.
C. W. Meoli
JUDGE