[2019] KEELC 2830 (KLR)
The court found that Mr. Ngure Mbugua, having previously testified in a criminal case involving the same property and having authored correspondence central to the dispute, is a potential witness in the current proceedings. The court held that it would be improper and unethical for Mr. Mbugua and his firm to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 2830 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: GMG; Plaintiff: SGM (through DMG as next friend); Defendant: Concord Traders Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 1432 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Advocate Disqualification
- Outcome
- preliminary objection allowed; plaintiffs' advocates disqualified
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Conflict of Interest, Disqualification of Counsel, Sale of Land Disputes, Fraud in Property Transactions
- 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
GMG
Plaintiff
SGM (through DMG as next friend)
Plaintiff
Concord Traders Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Advocate Disqualification
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiffs' advocate, Mr. Ngure Mbugua, should be disqualified from acting due to being a potential witness in the matter.
- 2 Whether the right to legal representation by an advocate of choice is absolute in circumstances where the advocate may be called as a witness.
- 3 Whether the involvement of the advocate in previous related proceedings and correspondence creates a conflict of interest.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that Mr. Ngure Mbugua, having previously testified in a criminal case involving the same property and having authored correspondence central to the dispute, is a potential witness in the current proceedings. The court held that it would be improper and unethical for Mr. Mbugua and his firm to continue acting for the Plaintiffs while also being potential witnesses. The court emphasized that the right to legal representation by an advocate of choice is not absolute and must yield where there is a real possibility of the advocate being called as a witness on material issues. The court concluded that the circumstances warranted disqualification of Mr. Mbugua and his firm from...
Court Disposition
preliminary objection allowed; plaintiffs' advocates disqualified
Orders
- Mr. Ngure Mbugua and the firm of Ngure Mbugua & Co. Advocates are disqualified from acting for the Plaintiffs in this case.
- The Plaintiffs are at liberty to engage a different firm of advocates to act for them.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAIROBI
ELC NO.1432 OF 2016
GMG............................................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
SGM............................................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
(a person adjudged to be of unsound mind in High Court Misc. Case No. 109 of 2014
through his friend DMG in compliance with Order 32 Rule 15
Civil Procedure Rules 2010)
VERSUS
CONCORD TRADERS LIMITED...............................DEFENDANT
RULING
The Defendant filed the preliminary objection dated 22/5/2018 on 25/5/2018 in which it raises an objection to the firm of Ngure Mbugua & Co. Advocates representing the Plaintiffs in this suit. The objection is based on grounds that Mr. John Ngure Mbugua of the said firm previously testified in Kiambu Criminal Case No. 155 of 2017 whose subject matter was the suit property in this case and that he is therefore a potential witness in the case either for the Plaintiffs or the Defendant. The Plaintiff further urged that the firm is intricately involved in matters relating to the apparent dispute and has authored various letters which are intended to be used as exhibits.
The Plaintiffs opposed the Defendant’s preliminary objection through the reply to the preliminary objection dated 19/9/2018. In opposition, the Plaintiffs urged that the Defendant’s objection did not give a compelling reason as to why John Ngure Mbugua Advocate should cease acting for the Plaintiff, and further that the said advocate has nothing personal against the Defendant nor does he have any personal interest in the matter.
The court has considered the preliminary objection, reply to the preliminary objection together with the submissions filed by counsel for the respective parties and the law applicable. Rule 9 of the Advocates (Practice Rules) prevents an advocate appearing as advocate in a case in which it is known, or becomes apparent, that the practitioner will be required to give evidence material to the determination of contested issues before the Court.
The Court of Appeal held in Delphis Bank Limited v Chatt & 6 Others [2005] 1 KLR that a litigant’s right to legal representation by an advocate of his choice is not absolute. The court set out some of the principles upon which an advocate may be disqualified from acting for a litigant. This right may be limited in two instances. Firstly where there is a possibility that the advocate may be called as a witness in the case and secondly where there exists a conflict of interest between two clients out of a previous advocate/client fiduciary relationship with the opposing client.
The question then becomes, is there a possibility that Ngure Mbugua Advocate of Ngure Mbugua & Company Advocates may be called as a witness in this matter? The dispute in this matter relates to allegations of unpaid consideration for sale of L.R. Number 12825/xxx in the form of outstanding tax arrears of Kshs. 47,446,876/= to the Kenya Revenue Authority. The Defendant is accused of failing to pay the said consideration despite entering upon the suit property. The Defendant claims to have paid the said consideration in full to Kenya Revenue Authority. The plaint raises allegations of fraud in relation to the sale transaction. Mr. Mbugua Advocate does not deny that he testified in Kiambu Criminal Case No. 155 of 2017, where the claim related to the suit property and in which the Defendant herein was charged. Mr. Ngure Mbugua recorded a statement with the police. A copy of his handwritten statement that was used in the said criminal case is listed in the Defendant’s list of documents as one of the documents to be relied on at the hearing of this suit. A casual perusal of the Plaintiffs’ documents shows that there are correspondences authored by Ngure Mbugua & Co. Advocates which are listed as documents to be relied on by the Plaintiff. Some of these include correspondence exchanged between Ngure Mbugua & Co. Advocates and the Kenya Revenue Authority, pertaining to the dispute between the parties. There is a possibility that Mr. Ngure Mbugua may be called to testify as a witness in this case. It would be improper and unethical for counsel to act for the Plaintiffs and still testify in this matter.
The court is inclined to allow this application. Both Mr. Ngure Mbugua and the firm of Ngure Mbugua & Co. Advocates are disqualified from acting for the Plaintiffs in this case. The Plaintiffs are at liberty to engage a different firm of advocates to act for them. The pleadings filed by Ngure Mbugua & Co. Advocates will remain on record.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 24th day of April 2019
K.BOR
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Ms. Rose Oluoch holding brief for Mr. Ngure for the Plaintiff
Mr. E.M. Wachira for the Defendant
Mr. V. Owuor- Court Assistant