[2017] KEHC 7576 (KLR)
The court found that since both parties agreed the grounds and arguments for review were similar to those in a related matter, and in the interest of justice, the previous ruling should be set aside. The references by both parties should be heard afresh to ensure fairness. The applicant was ordered to pay costs to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 7576 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: National Bank of Kenya Limited; Respondent: Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 61 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Previous Ruling
- Outcome
- Application for review allowed; previous ruling set aside; references to be heard afresh; costs awarded to respondent.
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Review of Rulings, Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Disputes
- 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
National Bank of Kenya Limited
Applicant
Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Previous Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ruling dated 17th August 2016 should be reviewed and set aside.
- 2 Whether the references by both parties should be heard afresh.
- 3 Whether the applicant should pay costs to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since both parties agreed the grounds and arguments for review were similar to those in a related matter, and in the interest of justice, the previous ruling should be set aside. The references by both parties should be heard afresh to ensure fairness. The applicant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent, assessed at Kshs. 30,000, in line with the principle that costs follow the event.
Court Disposition
Application for review allowed; previous ruling set aside; references to be heard afresh; costs awarded to respondent.
Orders
- The ruling dated 17th August 2016 is set aside.
- The references by both parties shall be heard afresh.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 61 OF 2015
BETWEEN
NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA LIMITED …………………..... CLIENT /APPLICANT
AND
OTIENO RAGOT & COMPANY ADVOCATES ……... ADVOCATES/ RESPONDENT
RULING NO. 3
1. The application before the court is one for review of the ruling dated 17th August 2016 (Ruling No. 2) in which I dismissed the Client’s reference dated 14th December 2015 and allowed the Advocates’ reference dated 30th December 2015.
2. The parties agreed a similar application for review had been filed in Kisumu HC Misc. 61 of 2015 and the ruling in that case should apply to this matter as the grounds and arguments were similar.
3. In accordance with Ruling No. 3 in Kisumu HC Misc. 61 of 2015, I review the orders made on 17th August 2015 and set aside the decision. The references shall now be heard afresh.
4. The Client shall pay the Advocates the costs which I assess at Kshs. 30,000/-.
5. Orders accordingly.
DATED andDELIVERED at KISUMUthis 6th day of March2017.
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE
Mr Ojuro instructed by Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Company Advocates for the Client/applicant.
Mr Otieno instructed by Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates for the Advocates/respondents.