[2015] KEHC 3641 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient cause for the orders sought, having provided evidence of her need for the funds and the breakdown in her relationship with her advocates. The absence of any objection from the defendants further supported the grant of the application. The court therefore...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 3641 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jane Gaudencia Achieng Kinda (Suing as the personal representative of the Estate of Hesbon Kinda Atieno & David Oluoch Kinda); Defendant: Charles Mageto; Defendant: Douglous Ojwang' Onachi; Defendant: Michael Kamau Ndegwa t/a Bomar Safaris
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 1209 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Leave to Act in Person and Direct Remittance of Decretal Sum
- Outcome
- Application allowed as prayed.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Act in Person, Remittance of Decretal Sum, Advocate Client Relationship
- 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
Jane Gaudencia Achieng Kinda (Suing as the personal representative of the Estate of Hesbon Kinda Atieno & David Oluoch Kinda)
Plaintiff
Charles Mageto
Defendant
Douglous Ojwang' Onachi
Defendant
Michael Kamau Ndegwa t/a Bomar Safaris
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Leave to Act in Person and Direct Remittance of Decretal Sum
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to act in person instead of through her advocates.
- 2 Whether the balance of the decretal amount should be remitted directly to the plaintiff rather than through her advocates.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient cause for the orders sought, having provided evidence of her need for the funds and the breakdown in her relationship with her advocates. The absence of any objection from the defendants further supported the grant of the application. The court therefore allowed the plaintiff to act in person and ordered that the balance of the decretal amount be remitted directly to her.
Court Disposition
Application allowed as prayed.
Orders
- The plaintiff is granted leave to act in person.
- The balance of the decretal amount of KShs. 4,560,137.85 is to be remitted directly to the plaintiff and not to her current advocates, Amolo & Kibanya Advocates.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1209 OF 1999
JANE GAUDENCIA ACHIENG KINDA (Suing as the personal
representative of the Estate ofHESBON KINDAATIENO & DAVID
OLUOCH KINDA (both deceased)......................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. CHARLES MAGETO
2. DOUGLOUS OJWANG' ONACHI
3. MICHAEL KAMAU NDEGWA T/A BOMAR SAFARIS......................DEFENDANTS
RULING
1. Before this court is a motion dated 26th June, 2015. The Plaintiff seeks that she be granted leave to act in person and that the balance of the decretal amount of KShs. 4,560,137. 85/= be remitted directly to her and not to her current advocates Amolo & Kibanya Advocates. The grounds upon which this application has been made is that the Plaintiff has fallen out with her said advocates and that she has previously had difficulty in the remittance to her of monies paid through her said advocates. She expressed her need for the money stating that she intends to use the money to pay for her daughter Grace Kinda and Joshua Brian Ogwedhi Otieno school fees.
2. The Plaintiff exhibited documents to prove that the said children are hers and documents confirming that she intends to pay school fees as alleged. This coupled with the fact that the application was not objected to, I find merit in this application and it is allowed as prayed.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court this 17th day of July, 2015.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
............................ for the Plaintiff
.....................................for the 1st Defendant
.....................................for the 2nd Defendant
.....................................for the 3rd Defendant