[2017] KEHC 2999 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 2999 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. There was no evidence of discovery of new and important matter or evidence, nor was there any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The application was also not made without unreasonable delay. On the issue of conflict of interest, the court held that there was a real risk that the applicant's advocate could become a witness in the substantive suit, which would be prejudicial to the respondent and compromise the principle of confidentiality in the advocate-client relationship. The right to counsel of one's choice is not absolute and may be...

Citation
[2017] KEHC 2999 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: G M; Defendant: D M M
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
6 October 2017
Case Number
Civil Case 64 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Previous Order Regarding Conflict of Interest
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Conflict of Interest, Matrimonial Property Disputes, Advocate Client Relationship
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family and Children Review of Court Orders Conflict of Interest Matrimonial Property Disputes Advocate Client Relationship

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G M

Plaintiff

D M M

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Previous Order Regarding Conflict of Interest

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application meets the threshold for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether there was a conflict of interest justifying the previous order restraining the defendant's advocate from acting.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. There was no evidence of discovery of new and important matter or evidence, nor was there any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The application was also not made without unreasonable delay. On the issue of conflict of interest, the court held that there was a real risk that the applicant's advocate could become a witness in the substantive suit, which would be prejudicial to the respondent and compromise the principle of confidentiality in the advocate-client relationship. The right to counsel of one's choice is not absolute and may be...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent

Orders

  • The defendant's/application dated 16th January 2017 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent.