[2004] KEHC 716 (KLR)
The court found that, although there was no written agreement, there was clear evidence of a meeting and discussion between the parties' advocates regarding settlement. The correspondence from Ms Muthiga to her client confirmed the existence of such an agreement. The court held that both advocates had authority to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 716 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lukas Otieno Odete; Defendant: Kipkebe Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 4 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Declare Suit Compromised
- Outcome
- application allowed; suit deemed compromised and settled
- Judges
- K Bauni
- Legal Topics
- Compromise of Suit, Settlement Agreements, Authority of Advocates
- 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
Lukas Otieno Odete
Plaintiff
Kipkebe Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Declare Suit Compromised
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit was compromised by agreement between the parties' advocates.
- 2 Whether payment of KES 749,080 constituted full settlement of the plaintiff's claims.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, although there was no written agreement, there was clear evidence of a meeting and discussion between the parties' advocates regarding settlement. The correspondence from Ms Muthiga to her client confirmed the existence of such an agreement. The court held that both advocates had authority to bind their clients and that the compromise reached was valid and enforceable. Consequently, the payment of KES 749,080 constituted full settlement of the plaintiff's claims, and the suit was deemed compromised.
Court Disposition
application allowed; suit deemed compromised and settled
Orders
- The application is allowed as prayed.
- The suit is declared compromised and fully settled upon payment of KES 749,080.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII
CIVIL SUIT NO.4 OF 2002
LUKAS OTIENO ODETE ………………………….…. PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
KIPKEBE LIMITED …………………………………….. DEFENDANT/APPLIANT
RULING:
The Applicant/Defendant applies to court to order that the suit has been compromised and the sum of shs.749,080/= paid to plaintiff’s lawyers have fully settled the suit.
It was submitted that the plaintiff had three suits against the defendant. Judgments were entered in his favour all totaling to shs.899,080/=.
There after there were discussions between Ms Muthiga for the applicant and Mr. Mudeyi of M/s Khan & Katiku advocates for the respondent and it was agreed that the three suits be compromised by the defendant paying shs.749,080/=. This money was duly paid. However later counsel for the respondent wrote demanding the balance of shs.150,000/=. Ms Muthiga submitted that she had written to her client explaining the agreement and that is why he paid.
Mr. Mudeyi said there was no such agreement and they had no instructions to compromise the suit. He said there was no written agreement.
Indeed there was no written agreement. However it was clear that there was a meeting between Mr. Mudeyi and Ms Muthiga where they discussed the payment. Ms Muthiga wrote to her client on 17th December 2002. Informing them about the discussion and the agreement.
She could not have written that letter annexture ‘RKM1’ – if there was no such discussion and agreement. I am satisfied that the two counsels compromised the suits. Both lawyers were representing their clients who are bound by the agreement.
In the circumstances the application is allowed as prayed.
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE
26/7/04
Delivered on 26/7/04.
Mr. Ogari holding brief for Ms Muthiga for respondent.
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE