[2023] KEHC 21874 (KLR)
The High Court determined that the appeal before it was strictly limited to the conduct of the appellant as an advocate, specifically regarding the release of title documents to one of two disputing parties. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to order the release of the title documents while an appeal on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 21874 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Tom K'Opere t/a TO K’Opere & Co Advocates; Respondent: Disciplinary Committee Of The LSK; Respondent: Sister Mary Dominic Savio Akoth
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 461 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Ruling on Management of Title Documents and Directions for Submissions
- Outcome
- Interlocutory orders issued; no final determination on appeal merits.
- Judges
- AN Ongeri
- Legal Topics
- Disciplinary Proceedings, Advocate Misconduct, Title Document Custody, Interpleader Proceedings
- 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
Tom K'Opere t/a TO K’Opere & Co Advocates
Appellant
Disciplinary Committee Of The LSK
Respondent
Sister Mary Dominic Savio Akoth
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Ruling on Management of Title Documents and Directions for Submissions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can order release of the title documents pending determination of the appeal at the Court of Appeal.
- 2 Whether the appeal concerns the ownership of the suit property or the conduct of the appellant as an advocate.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court determined that the appeal before it was strictly limited to the conduct of the appellant as an advocate, specifically regarding the release of title documents to one of two disputing parties. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to order the release of the title documents while an appeal on the substantive ownership of the property was pending before the Court of Appeal. To preserve the status quo and avoid prejudicing the pending appeal, the court ordered that the title documents be deposited with the registrar of the Court of Appeal until the appeal is determined. The court also issued directions for the parties to file written submissions within 21 days, starting...
Court Disposition
Interlocutory orders issued; no final determination on appeal merits.
Orders
- The title documents for the suit property shall be deposited with the registrar of the Court of Appeal pending determination of Kisumu Court of Appeal case No E093 of 2022.
- The parties in this appeal shall file written submissions within 21 days each, starting with the appellant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
K'Opere t/a TO K’Opere & Co Advocates v Disciplinary Committee of the LSK & another (Civil Appeal 461 of 2011) [2023] KEHC 21874 (KLR) (Civ) (15 August 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 21874 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Civil Appeal 461 of 2011
AN Ongeri, J
August 15, 2023
Between
Tom K'Opere t/a TO K’Opere & Co Advocates
Appellant
and
The Disciplinary Committee Of The Lsk
1st Respondent
Sister Mary Dominic Savio Akoth
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. Upon perusing this file, I find that the appeal herein is against the decision of the 1st respondent, the Disciplinary Committee Of Law Sociey Of Kenya which found the appellant guilty of misconduct.
2. The said decision was made pursuant to a complaint by the 2nd respondent Sister Dominic Savio Akoth against the appellant in respect of property known as Title No. West Kasipul/Karabach/599 situated at Rachuonyo District (referred to as the suit property) which the 2nd respondent alleged that she bought in an auction from National Bank of Kenya (NBK).
3. The appellant was directed by the court to deposit the title deed of the suit property in this court on 19/11/2011.
4. The appellant said he filed interpleader proceedings in this case and the said interpleader proceedings were transferred to Kisumu.
5. The Appellant was seeking a determination on the ownership of the suit property and also seeking directions on the issue of his legal fees in the said interpleader proceedings.
6. This appeal was held in abeyance pending the determination of the interpleader proceedings at Kisumu ELC Division.
7. The hearing at Kisumu was finally determined in a judgment delivered on 6/5/2022 but there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal at Kisumu from the said.
8. The family of the holder of the title deed of the suit property have since been enjoined as Interested Parties in this appeal and also the NBK which sold the suit property in an auction.
9. Upon perusal of this file, I find that the appeal herein has nothing to do with the determination of the ownership of the suit property.
10. The appeal is purely on the conduct of the appellant who released the title documents two one of the two parties having a dispute over the suit property.
11. I find that this court cannot order release of the title documents until the appeal filed in the court of appeal is heard and determined.
12. Since it is not possible to determine the length of time the appeal will last, I direct that the said title documents be deposited with the registrar of the Court of Appeal pending the determination of the appeal in Kisumu Court of Appeal being CA case No E093 of 2022.
13. I also direct the parties in the appeal herein to file written submissions in the appeal within 21 days each starting with the appellant.
14. The case will be mentioned on October 17, 2023 for a judgment date.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023. ……………………………A. N. ONGERIJUDGEIn the presence of:……………………………. for the Appellant……………………………. for the 1st Respondent……………………………. for the 2nd Respondent