[2010] KEHC 2095 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent advocate is indeed accountable to the applicant for the decretal amount and advocate fees, and that the respondent still owes the applicant money, though the exact amount was not determined due to ongoing work and unresolved matters. However, the court held that the enforceability...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2095 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Moses Khaemba Wasike; Respondent: Rumba Kinuthia t/a Rumba Kinuthia & Company Advocates
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 371 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Originating Summons
- Outcome
- originating summons dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Accounts, Remuneration Agreements, Accounting of Funds
- 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
Moses Khaemba Wasike
Applicant
Rumba Kinuthia t/a Rumba Kinuthia & Company Advocates
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Originating Summons
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent advocate is accountable to the applicant for the decretal amount and advocate fees.
- 2 Whether the respondent owes the applicant any balance from the court award.
- 3 Whether the agreement between the applicant and respondent regarding fees is enforceable under the cited rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent advocate is indeed accountable to the applicant for the decretal amount and advocate fees, and that the respondent still owes the applicant money, though the exact amount was not determined due to ongoing work and unresolved matters. However, the court held that the enforceability of the agreement between the parties regarding the fee percentage could not be determined under the procedural rules invoked in this application. As a result, the court dismissed the originating summons, awarding costs to the respondent, but acknowledged the respondent’s continuing obligation to account to the applicant.
Court Disposition
originating summons dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The Originating Summons dated 16th June 2008 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI Civil Application 371 of 2008
IN THE MATTER OF RUMBA KINUTHIA ADVOCATE
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES ACT, CAP 16 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA
BETWEEN
MOSES KHAEMBA WASIKE………………………………………………………………….APPLICANT
VERSUS
RUMBA KINUTHIA
T/A RUMBA KINUTHIA & COMPANY ADVOCATES…………………………….RESPONDENT
RULING
This is a ruling in the Originating Summons dated 16th June 2008 and fled on the same date by the Applicant praying for orders:-
“1. THAT the Respondent do render an account for the decretal amount and advocate fees in HCCC No. 2993 of 1995 NAIROBI.
2. THAT the Respondent to remit the balance of the decretal amount due to the Applicant.
3. THAT costs of this application be provided for.”
The Originating Summons is brought under Section 56 of the Advocates Act (Cap 16 of the Laws of Kenya), Order LII Rule 4 (1) (a), (b) and Rule 10 (1), Order XXX VI rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In accordance with a consent Court Order dated 22nd February 2010, the parties filed their respective written submissions on the basis of which I am writing this ruling.
The Respondent was instructed to represent this Applicant in High Court Civil Case No. 2993 of 1995 (HCCC No. 2993/1995) MOSES KHAEMBA WASIKEVSTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL.On 18th March 2004, the Court in its judgment awarded Kshs.707,000/= plus costs and interest calculated at court rates to the Applicant herein.
It had been agreed by the parties that a retainer of 25% of the figure awarded as damages will be retained by the Respondent.According to the Applicant, the 25% was subsequently changed by hand and countersigned by the Respondent only to read 35%.The Applicant contents that he was not aware of such change and did not consent to it, even if he is a college educated person.
The Attorney General issued a cheque of Kshs.795,215/= payable to the Respondent in full and final settlement of the matter.The exact amount of money claimed by the Applicant is not clear.He says the Respondent made him sign a document purporting to pay the Applicant Kshs.440,000/= in full and final settlement of the final award but in reality the Respondent paid the Applicant Kshs.285,000/=. He therefore argues that the Respondent still owes him Kshs.311,411. 25 being the balance of the court award.However the Applicant says he is entitled to a total of Kshs.510,215/= the total decretal amount.The Applicant therefore filed this Originating Summons seeking orders requiring the Respondent to render an account of the decretal amount and Advocates fees and an order requiring the Respondent to remit the balance of the decretal amount due to the Applicant as well as the costs of this application.
According to the Respondent, the agreement was signed stating the Respondent would retain 35% over and above costs awarded, disbursements advances, court fees etc, of the total decretal amount.The Applicant knew that fact and is misleading the court.He retained a copy of the relevant instruction note which the Respondent says should be upheld the Respondent having handled the Applicant’s case for 11 years and the Applicant having pocketed a substantial amount of money from the Respondent.
Moreover, it is premature for the Applicant to request for accounts whereas he has in writing committed himself to be patient until finalization of the matter as there is an appeal still pending filed by the Applicant in the Court of Appeal through the Respondent.
For me to conclude this ruling therefore:Whether the Respondent was or is accountable to the Applicant, the answer is yes.Whether the Respondent still owes money to the Applicant, the answer is yes, though the actual amount not determined in this ruling because the Respondent is still doing some work for the Applicant, notably with long delay.Whether the agreement between the Applicant and the Respondent herein is enforceable, the answer is not available under Order LII Rule 4(1) (a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the Originating Summons dated 16th June 2008 with costs to the Respondent.
Dated this 30th day of April 2010.
J.M. KHAMONI
JUDGE
Present
Wandabwa Advocates for the Applicant
Rumba Kinuthia & Company Advocates/Respondent
Court Clerk:Kabiru.