[2012] KEHC 5464 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 5464 (KLR)

The court found that the advocate, Kenneth Omondi Watta, did not meet the statutory requirement of continuous full-time practice in Kenya for two years prior to opening his own firm, as he was absent from Kenya and did not hold a practicing certificate for 2006. The evidence presented by the applicant was inconsistent with the advocate's own declarations. Consequently, the finding that Watta contravened Section 32(1) of the Advocates Act stands. The court further held that the plaintiff's application for review of the costs order did not meet the threshold under Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as there was no discovery of new and important matter, mistake, or error apparent...

Citation
[2012] KEHC 5464 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Equity Bank Limited; Defendant: Capital Construction Limited; Defendant: Venkata Chailulu Ganti; Defendant: Prasad Ganti; Defendant: Al Karim Badrudin Sunderji
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
29 June 2012
Case Number
Civil Suit 645 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Applications for Review of Costs and Striking Out Orders
Outcome
Both applications for review are dismissed with costs to the defendants.
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Costs Awards, Advocate Qualification, Striking Out Pleadings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Review of Court Orders Costs Awards Advocate Qualification Striking Out Pleadings

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Equity Bank Limited

Plaintiff

Capital Construction Limited

Defendant

Venkata Chailulu Ganti

Defendant

Prasad Ganti

Defendant

Al Karim Badrudin Sunderji

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Applications for Review of Costs and Striking Out Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should review and set aside the order directing the plaintiff to bear the defendants' costs for the struck out suit.
  2. 2 Whether the court should review and set aside the order striking out pleadings and bill of costs on grounds of advocate's non-compliance with Section 32 of the Advocates Act.
  3. 3 Whether new and important evidence regarding the advocate's employment and qualification justifies review of the orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the advocate, Kenneth Omondi Watta, did not meet the statutory requirement of continuous full-time practice in Kenya for two years prior to opening his own firm, as he was absent from Kenya and did not hold a practicing certificate for 2006. The evidence presented by the applicant was inconsistent with the advocate's own declarations. Consequently, the finding that Watta contravened Section 32(1) of the Advocates Act stands. The court further held that the plaintiff's application for review of the costs order did not meet the threshold under Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as there was no discovery of new and important matter, mistake, or error apparent...

Court Disposition

Both applications for review are dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application dated 13th January, 2012 is dismissed with costs to the defendants.
  • The application by Ochieng’ Opiyo & Company Advocates dated 23rd February, 2012 is dismissed with costs to the defendants.