[2020] KEHC 6081 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 6081 (KLR)

The court found that the consent order recorded on 27th September 2018 was contractual in nature and could only be set aside on the consent of both parties or on grounds sufficient to set aside a contract. The applicant denied signing the legal fees agreement that formed the basis of the consent, and the respondent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 6081 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Josephat Sammy Kituku; Respondent: Rose Obata t/a Obaga & Co. Advocates; Plaintiff: Josephat Sammy Kituku; Defendant: Rose Obata t/a Obaga & Co. Advocates; Defendant: Dr. Daniel Karanja
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E065 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Review and Set Aside Consent Order
Outcome
Consent order set aside; parties to revert to pre-consent position; pending application to be canvassed; costs to abide outcome of pending application.
Judges
GL Nzioka
Legal Topics
Advocate Client Fees, Consent Orders, Review of Court Orders, No Est Factum, Contractual Variation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Advocate Client Fees Consent Orders Review of Court Orders No Est Factum Contractual Variation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josephat Sammy Kituku

Applicant

Rose Obata t/a Obaga & Co. Advocates

Respondent

Josephat Sammy Kituku

Plaintiff

Rose Obata t/a Obaga & Co. Advocates

Defendant

Dr. Daniel Karanja

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Review and Set Aside Consent Order

  1. 1 Whether the consent order recorded on 27th September 2018 should be reviewed or set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the legal fees agreement dated 15th January 2013 is valid and binding on the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a refund or adjustment of the legal fees deducted by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the consent order recorded on 27th September 2018 was contractual in nature and could only be set aside on the consent of both parties or on grounds sufficient to set aside a contract. The applicant denied signing the legal fees agreement that formed the basis of the consent, and the respondent did not file any opposition or rebuttal. The court held that, in the absence of opposition and given the contested nature of the legal fees agreement, the consent order should be set aside, not reviewed. The parties were ordered to revert to their positions prior to the consent and to canvass the pending application dated 14th September 2018. The court declined to declare the...

Court Disposition

Consent order set aside; parties to revert to pre-consent position; pending application to be canvassed; costs to abide outcome of pending application.

Orders

  • The consent order recorded on 27th September 2018 is set aside.
  • Parties to revert to the position they were in before the consent was recorded.