[2014] KEHC 2377 (KLR)
The court held that the defendant's interpretation of the professional undertaking was unduly restrictive and self-serving. The undertaking did not specify that the entire judgment sum must be recovered before payment to the plaintiff. Since the defendant had already recovered more than enough to discharge the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 2377 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Maina & Maina Advocates; Defendant: Nelson Kaburu Advocates
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 418 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Summons / Ruling
- Outcome
- originating summons allowed
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Advocates Professional Undertakings, Enforcement of Undertakings, Debt Recovery
- 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
Maina & Maina Advocates
Plaintiff
Nelson Kaburu Advocates
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant is obligated to honour the professional undertaking to pay KShs 40,000 to the plaintiff upon recovery of any part of the judgment sum.
- 2 Whether the defendant's interpretation that full recovery of the decretal sum is required before payment is valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the defendant's interpretation of the professional undertaking was unduly restrictive and self-serving. The undertaking did not specify that the entire judgment sum must be recovered before payment to the plaintiff. Since the defendant had already recovered more than enough to discharge the undertaking (KShs 143,673), he was obligated to pay the plaintiff KShs 40,000 as promised. The court emphasized that professional undertakings by advocates are binding and must be honoured according to their terms, and that the defendant's refusal to pay was unjustified. The court therefore allowed the originating summons and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff within...
Court Disposition
originating summons allowed
Orders
- The defendant shall within fourteen (14) days of delivery of this ruling honour his professional undertaking by paying to the plaintiff KShs 40,000.
- In default, the plaintiff may execute for that sum, plus interest thereon at court rates from the date of filing these proceedings, as a decree of the court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
HCCC NO 418 OF 2013 (O.S.)
MAINA & MAINA ADVOCATES...................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NELSON KABURU ADVOCATES.............................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. The originating summons dated 16th September 2013 herein is for enforcement of an advocate’s professional undertaking. It is brought under Order 52, rule 7(1) (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (the Rules). Both parties are advocates of this court. The Defendant entered appearance but did not file any replying affidavit. He was not required to file any replying affidavit, or indeed to enter any appearance. See rule 10(2) of the same Order.
2. The background to this dispute is brief and is as follows. The Plaintiff was acting for a client when the client instructed the Defendant to take over the matter. The Plaintiff released the client’s file to the Defendant upon his professional undertaking “to pay to you KShs 40,000/00 upon receipt of the settlement or judgment sum ....” That is common ground.
3. It is also now common ground (though previously denied by the Defendant) that some time back he recovered some KShs 143,673/00 towards the judgment sum. He has declined to pay to the Plaintiff his KShs 40,000/00 from this sum. His argument is that he must first recover the entire decretal sum before he can pay the Plaintiff.
4. I find the Defendant’s interpretation of his professional undertaking to be unduly restrictive, narrow and self-serving. The undertaking does not state in terms that he must first recover the entire or full judgment sum in order to pay the Plaintiff. Surely it falls to reason that as soon as he recovered enough to discharge his professional undertaking he must first do so! He recovered more than enough quite some time ago – KShs 143,673/00 to be precise. He at first denied this recovery and only admitted it at the hearing of the originating summons.
5. I will in the event allow the originating summons and direct as follows –
(i) The Defendant shall within fourteen (14) days of delivery of this ruling honour his professional undertaking by paying to the Plaintiff KShs 40,000/00.
(ii) In default the Plaintiff may execute for that sum, plus interest thereon at court rates from the date of filing these proceedings, as a decree of the court.
(iii) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff costs of these proceedings to be agreed or taxed.
6. All the other reliefs sought are not within the jurisdiction of the court and are refused. Those will be the orders of the court.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014
H P G WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014