[2024] KEHC 4852 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 4852 (KLR)

The court found that the suit was not res judicata because the previous suit (HCCC 127 of 2009) was struck out on procedural grounds, not on the merits. However, the court held that the consultancy agreement dated 16/2/2007 was not valid or enforceable. The agreement was found to be vague as to the actual services provided by the plaintiff, with no clear disclosure of the work done or the amount awarded in the referenced case. The court considered it dangerous and contrary to public policy for non-lawyers to provide consultancy services in contentious court matters, as this could amount to influencing judicial decisions through opaque means. The agreement's lack of transparency and its...

Citation
[2024] KEHC 4852 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Eustace Gakui Gitonga; Defendant: African Commuters Services Ltd; Defendant: Esmael Mohamed Jibril; Defendant: Kenya Civil Aviation Authority; Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
26 April 2024
Case Number
Civil Case 148 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's suit dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs.
Judges
AN Ongeri
Legal Topics
Consultancy Agreements, Contract Enforceability, Public Policy, Illegality of Contracts
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Consultancy Agreements Contract Enforceability Public Policy Illegality of Contracts

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eustace Gakui Gitonga

Plaintiff

African Commuters Services Ltd

Defendant

Esmael Mohamed Jibril

Defendant

Kenya Civil Aviation Authority

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit is res judicata.
  2. 2 Whether the consultancy agreement dated 16/2/2007 is valid and enforceable between the plaintiff and the defendants.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought against the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the suit was not res judicata because the previous suit (HCCC 127 of 2009) was struck out on procedural grounds, not on the merits. However, the court held that the consultancy agreement dated 16/2/2007 was not valid or enforceable. The agreement was found to be vague as to the actual services provided by the plaintiff, with no clear disclosure of the work done or the amount awarded in the referenced case. The court considered it dangerous and contrary to public policy for non-lawyers to provide consultancy services in contentious court matters, as this could amount to influencing judicial decisions through opaque means. The agreement's lack of transparency and its...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's suit dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's suit is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs of the suit.