[2007] KEHC 1920 (KLR)
The court held that under the Partnership Act, liability for acts of a partnership attaches only to those who were partners at the time the alleged liability arose. Since J.B. Havelock was not a partner at the material time, he could not be held liable for the alleged professional negligence. The court therefore...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 1920 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jayantilal Dharamshi Gosrani; Defendant: J.B. Havelock L.W. Muriuki & S.S. Raval all t/a Havelock Muriuki & Raval Advocates (Successor to Mcvicker & Muriuki Advocates)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1078 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Party
- Outcome
- Application allowed in the alternative; J.B. Havelock struck out as a defendant.
- Legal Topics
- Professional Negligence, Partnership Liability, Striking Out Parties
- 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
Jayantilal Dharamshi Gosrani
Plaintiff
J.B. Havelock L.W. Muriuki & S.S. Raval all t/a Havelock Muriuki & Raval Advocates (Successor to Mcvicker & Muriuki Advocates)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether J.B. Havelock should be struck out as a defendant for acts committed before he became a partner.
- 2 Whether liability for professional negligence attaches only to partners at the time the alleged act occurred.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that under the Partnership Act, liability for acts of a partnership attaches only to those who were partners at the time the alleged liability arose. Since J.B. Havelock was not a partner at the material time, he could not be held liable for the alleged professional negligence. The court therefore allowed the application in the alternative and struck out the name of J.B. Havelock from the proceedings. The court made no findings regarding the other two partners due to lack of affidavits.
Court Disposition
Application allowed in the alternative; J.B. Havelock struck out as a defendant.
Orders
- The name of J.B. Havelock is struck out from these proceedings.
- No findings are made regarding the other two partners due to lack of affidavits.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE 1078 OF 2006
JAYANTILAL DHARAMSHI GOSRANI ……………......................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
J.B. HAVELOCK L.W. MURIUKI & S.S. RAVAL ALL t/a HAVELOCK MURIUKI & RAVAL ADVOCATES
(Successor to Mcvicker & Muriuki Advocates) ……................…........DEFENDANT
RULING
1: The background of the application of 7 March 2007
1. The plaintiff herein Jayantilal Dharamshi Gorrami, sues the parties in the law firm of Havelcok, Muriuki & Rawal Advocates for professional negligence.
2. One of the parties Havelcok applies to this court to have his name and or the firms names struck out on grounds that the said negligent act was said to have been committed when he had not yet been a partner to a former firm of M/s Mc Vicker & Muriuki Advocates .
3. The suit is said to be subject to Order XXIX of the Civil Procedure Rules as well as the partnership Act.
4. That there is another matter being miscellaneous cause 573/2006 that may be prejudice by this matter.
II The Finding
5. Under the Partnership Act the parties who are partners at the time liability arose are the ones liable and responsible for any acts therein.
6. I accordingly allow this application in the alternative and struck out the name of J.B. Havelock from these proceedings.
7. I do not have affidavits for the other two partners and therefore make no findings.
Dated this 19th day of June 2007 at Nairobi.
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
J.W.. Kimiti for Rumba Kinuthia & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff
J. Kibet for. Kibet & Co. Advocates for the defendant