[2005] KEHC 3197 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 3197 (KLR)

The court found that the consent orders issued on 15th March, 2004 were entered into by the applicant's advocate without any instructions from the client, either express or implied. The advocate failed to inform the client of the applications or the resulting orders, and did not act in the client's best interests. The court held that while advocates have ostensible authority to compromise matters, such authority cannot be upheld where it is exercised contrary to the client's instructions and interests. The absence of any satisfactory explanation from the advocate, coupled with evidence of complaints to the police and complaints commission, led the court to conclude that the consent orders...

Citation
[2005] KEHC 3197 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: District Land Registrar Nandi; Applicant: Obadiah Kirui; Applicant: Kiprono Tegerei (deceased); Respondent: Jonathan K. Rono
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
26 April 2005
Case Number
? 240 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Setting Aside of Consent Orders
Outcome
Application allowed; consent orders of 15th March, 2004 set aside; unconditional leave granted to interested party/applicant to contest the application dated 10th March, 2004; costs awarded to interested party/applicant.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Consent Orders, Advocate Authority, Injunctions, Land Title Disputes
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Judicial Review Consent Orders Advocate Authority Injunctions Land Title Disputes

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

District Land Registrar Nandi

Respondent

Obadiah Kirui

Applicant

Kiprono Tegerei (deceased)

Applicant

Jonathan K. Rono

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Setting Aside of Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent orders issued on 15th March, 2004 should be set aside for lack of instructions to the advocate.
  2. 2 Whether an advocate can bind a client to consent orders without express or implied instructions.
  3. 3 Whether injunctive relief can be granted in concluded judicial review proceedings under Order LIII of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the consent orders issued on 15th March, 2004 were entered into by the applicant's advocate without any instructions from the client, either express or implied. The advocate failed to inform the client of the applications or the resulting orders, and did not act in the client's best interests. The court held that while advocates have ostensible authority to compromise matters, such authority cannot be upheld where it is exercised contrary to the client's instructions and interests. The absence of any satisfactory explanation from the advocate, coupled with evidence of complaints to the police and complaints commission, led the court to conclude that the consent orders...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; consent orders of 15th March, 2004 set aside; unconditional leave granted to interested party/applicant to contest the application dated 10th March, 2004; costs awarded to interested party/applicant.

Orders

  • The consent orders issued on 15th March, 2004 are set aside.
  • Unconditional leave is granted to the interested party/applicant to contest the application dated 10th March, 2004.