[2006] KEHC 1858 (KLR)
The court found that the Power of Attorney granted to Dickson Mwangi Muraya by the client was sufficiently broad to authorize the appointment of counsel to resist the Chamber Summons, as the taxation of costs was a transaction appurtenant to the mandate to recover damages. The reference to taxation was considered...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1858 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kamunyori & Company Advocates; Respondent: Nancy Dietz
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous 1111 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection overruled with costs to the client
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Power of Attorney Scope, Preliminary Objection, 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
Kamunyori & Company Advocates
Applicant
Nancy Dietz
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Power of Attorney granted to Dickson Mwangi Muraya authorized the appointment of counsel to resist the Chamber Summons related to taxation of costs.
- 2 Whether the firm of V. V. Mule & Company Advocates was properly on record for the client in the present proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Power of Attorney granted to Dickson Mwangi Muraya by the client was sufficiently broad to authorize the appointment of counsel to resist the Chamber Summons, as the taxation of costs was a transaction appurtenant to the mandate to recover damages. The reference to taxation was considered part of the recovery process, and thus within the scope of the authority granted by the Power of Attorney. Consequently, the preliminary objection challenging the propriety of V. V. Mule & Company Advocates being on record was not well founded and was overruled with costs to the client.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection overruled with costs to the client
Orders
- The Preliminary Objection is overruled with costs to the client.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Misc Appli 1111 of 2005
KAMUNYORI & COMPANY ADVOCATES……................................................…….. APPLICANT
VERSUS
NANCY DIETZ….…………………..………….............................................…….….RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The client’s Chamber Summons dated 27. 3.2006 came up before me for hearing on 14. 6.2006. The client is seeking a review or a setting aside of an order of the Deputy Registrar on a taxation of an Advocate Client Bill of Costs. Before the application could be heard, the Advocate raised objection to the same as per his Notice of Preliminary Objection dated and filed on 6. 6.2006 on the ground that the firm of V. V. Mule & Company Advocates is not properly on record. That firm now acts for the client who by a Power of Attorney has appointed one Dickson Murangi Muraya to sue for and recover in her name damages arising as a result of an accident involving her car.
The foundation of the objection is that the said Power of Attorney is limited to the recovery of damages for the client and its mandate does not extend to appointing an Advocate to resist the present Chamber Summons.
For the client it is argued that, the Power donated by the said Power of Attorney is wide enough to cover the appointment of counsel to resist the Chamber Summons which summons is in reality related to the recovery for which the power was donated.
Having heard the rival submissions of counsel, I take the following view of the matter. The power that the client donated to Dickson Mwangi Muraya was “to sue for and recover in my name damages arising as a result of an accident involving my car registration number KAG 323V on 7. 5.1999. ” It is the same power that Dickson Mwangi Muraya exercised to appoint the Advocate to institute the proceedings that have given rise to the taxation by the Deputy Registrar and subsequently the present reference. The client is the one challenging the taxation of the Bill of Costs filed by the Advocate. In my respectful view, the taxation was a transaction appurtenant to the mandate to recover damages for the client. It was a proceeding in the recovery. In my respectful view this reference is like defending the recovery process and is within the mandate of the donee of the Power of Attorney given by the client.
Being of that view I hold that the Preliminary Objection has not been well taken and is overruled with costs to the client.
Order accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2006.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
4. 7.2006
Read in the presence of:-