[2008] KEHC 242 (KLR)
The court found that M/S Sila Munyao & Co. advocates had previously represented Ayub Kiprotich Siele, who is a director of the plaintiff company, and that this prior relationship created a conflict of interest due to the potential possession of confidential information relevant to the current suit. The advocate's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 242 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kipsigis Tank Industry Co. Ltd; Defendant: Agricultural Finance Corporation
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 61 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Advocate Disqualification
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part; advocate disqualified; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Conflict of Interest, Disqualification of Counsel, Confidential Information, Taxation of Costs
- 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
Kipsigis Tank Industry Co. Ltd
Plaintiff
Agricultural Finance Corporation
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Advocate Disqualification
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether M/S Sila Munyao & Co. advocates should be disqualified from acting for the 1st defendant due to conflict of interest arising from prior representation of a director of the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether the application for disqualification was brought in a timely manner and if delay affects the merits of the application.
- 3 Whether defendants whose case was struck out can proceed with taxation before finalization of the main suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that M/S Sila Munyao & Co. advocates had previously represented Ayub Kiprotich Siele, who is a director of the plaintiff company, and that this prior relationship created a conflict of interest due to the potential possession of confidential information relevant to the current suit. The advocate's failure to disclose this relationship was prejudicial to the integrity of the proceedings. Although the application for disqualification was brought after some delay, the court held that the advocate should be disqualified for non-disclosure. The court further noted that taxation of costs by the struck-out defendants should not proceed until the main suit is finalized. No costs...
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part; advocate disqualified; no order as to costs.
Orders
- M/S Sila Munyao & Co. advocates are disqualified from acting for the 1st defendant in this matter for non-disclosure of prior representation of a director of the plaintiff.
- No costs are awarded for this application due to delay in bringing it to court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
Civil Suit 61 of 2006
KIPSIGIS TANK INDUSTRY CO. LTD ………………………… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION ….………… DEFENDANT
RULING
ON APPLICATION OF 17TH APRIL, 2008
I: Background
1. On the 13th July, 2006 M/S Kipsigis Tank Industry Company Ltd filed suit against Agricultural Finance Corporation the defendant herein concerning certain intended sale of security held by the defendant in furtherance of a loan advanced to the plaintiff. The defendant entered appearance on 19th July, 2006 through M/S Cyril S. Wayong’o Co. advocates of Nairobi.
2. The Plaintiffs then amended their Plaint to include two Plaintiffs and three new defendants. The defendants were able to raise a Preliminary Objection that the said amendments had been made without leave of the Court. It was then that the court in its Ruling of 4th December, 2007 struck out the same against the new two plaintiffs and three additional defendants. The original main suit stood as it had been filed.
3. On the 7th June, 2007 the 1st defendant had changed their advocates to M/S Sila Munya & Co. who had actively represented the 3 and 4 defendant. Thus when the arguments and Ruling was being made the said advocate was representing the 1st defendant.
4. The Hon. Judge commented that the said Plaintiffs may bring another application. This was filed on the 23rd May, 2008.
5. In the meantime, the defendants whose case was struck out against them filed for taxation. Believing that the said taxation may lead to execution against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s advocate filed an application under certificate of urgency and further prayed that the firm of M/S Sila Munyao do disqualify himself from acting for the 1st defendant.
Application 17th April, 2008
6. In their application the Plaintiffs claim that M/S Sila Munyao & Co. advocates had acted for one Kiprotich A. Siele whom he represented in HCCC 90/01 (seen by court). In this said case of Ayub Kiprotich Siele v National Bank of Kenya to the said Kiprotich Siele was a client of M/S Sila Munyao and had in his grasp all the confidential information required to bring a prejudicial case against him.
7. The said advocate admitted he represented one Ayub Kiprotich Siele but that he was not the same person as M/S Kipsigis Tank Industry Company Ltd. On being questioned further by the Court he admitted that the said Ayub Kiprotich Siele was in fact the director of the 1st Plaintiff herein. Nonetheless he did not see this as a conflict of interest.
8. The question before me is whether the said M/S Sila Munyao & Co. advocate be disqualified or not.
II Opinion
9. From the proceedings before Court the said M/S Sila Munyao has been on record for 3 and 4 defendants (now struck out) and later for 1st defendant. At no time did the Plaintiffs protest nor bring to the attention of the Court. This application can be termed as a “red herring” in that the main issue is that of taxation. The applicant requires to have dealt with the issue of taxation namely, no taxation is permitted to be undertaken till the finalization of the whole suit. The defendants whose suit have been struck out must await the finalization of the suit before they can tax their costs and or execute.
10. This application, if filed on its merit, would clearly show that the advocate M/S Sila Munyao must indeed bring it to the attention of the Court, his relationship with the said director of the company and his nondisclosure is prejudicial to the 1st defendant’s case.
11. I would believe that this is not the correct application to bring after one year. The 1st plaintiff had waivered his rights to the same.
12. I am aware of another application being brought questioning and or to enjoin the original parties that would mean, the former client when the issue of conflict may rise again.
13. The advocate requires to accordingly step down in this matter. I hereby hold that he be disqualified for non-disclosure of the fact that he represented a director of the 1st defendant.
14. I do not award any costs to the application on grounds of delay in bringing this application to Court.
DATED this 13th day of November, 2008 at KERICHO
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Advocate - S.K. Siele advocate instructed by M/S Siele Sigira & Co. advocates for the Plaintiff/Applicant
M. Sila advocate instructed by M/S Sila Munyao & Co. advocates for the Defendant/Respondent