[2024] KEHC 5777 (KLR)
The court dismissed the application on two grounds: first, the applicant was absent and failed to prosecute the application; second, there was no evidence that Mr. Stephen Aluoch K’Opot held a valid practising certificate as required under the Advocates Act. The court found that only duly qualified advocates may...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 5777 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stepheb Aluoch K'Opot t/a K’Opot & Company Advocates; Respondent: Seline Grace Ominde
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 37 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Recovery of Costs
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Practising Certificate, Dismissal for Non Prosecution
- 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
Stepheb Aluoch K'Opot t/a K’Opot & Company Advocates
Applicant
Seline Grace Ominde
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Recovery of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for recovery of costs can be prosecuted in the absence of the applicant.
- 2 Whether Mr. Stephen Aluoch K’Opot is a duly qualified advocate entitled to recover costs under the Advocates Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court dismissed the application on two grounds: first, the applicant was absent and failed to prosecute the application; second, there was no evidence that Mr. Stephen Aluoch K’Opot held a valid practising certificate as required under the Advocates Act. The court found that only duly qualified advocates may recover costs, and in the absence of proof of qualification, the application could not be sustained. The court also emphasized the importance of prosecuting applications diligently, and failure to do so warrants dismissal.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 27th June 2018 is dismissed for want of prosecution and lack of evidence of advocate's practising status.
- The file is closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
K'Opot t/a K’Opot & Company Advocates v Ominde (Miscellaneous Civil Application 37 of 2017) [2024] KEHC 5777 (KLR) (15 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 5777 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Civil Application 37 of 2017
RE Aburili, J
May 15, 2024
Between
Stepheb Aluoch K'Opot t/a K’Opot & Company Advocates
Applicant
and
Seline Grace Ominde
Respondent
Ruling
1. It is now 10. 40am. Mr. Jeji appeared at 9. 15am and I asked him to supply evidence that Mr. K’Opot is an advocate in active practice but he could not supply the same.
2. I placed the file aside. I have recalled the file and he is not available to respond to the court’s query.
3. The application dated 27th June 2018 is hereby dismissed for two reasons:1. That the same is not prosecuted by the Applicant who is absent.2. That the person purporting to be an advocate on whose behalf the costs are sought to be recovered, a Mr. Stephen Aluoch K’Opot is not an advocate, under the Advocates Act as there is no evidence that he has a practicing license.
4. This file is closed.
5. This Ruling to be typed forthwith.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 15THDAY OF MAY, 2024R. E. ABURILIJUDGE