[2018] KEHC 733 (KLR)
The court found that the Advocate/Respondent failed to demonstrate, by way of documentary evidence or otherwise, that they were retained by the Client/Applicant to act in Milimani CMCC No. 9772 of 2006. The Client/Applicant provided evidence that another firm, Maosa & Company Advocates, was instructed and filed the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 733 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Ngugi Mwangi & Co. Advocates; Applicant: Alloy Steel Castings Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 178 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion Regarding Retainer
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- RB Ngetich
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Relationship, Retainer Dispute, Instructions to Counsel
- 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
Ngugi Mwangi & Co. Advocates
Respondent
Alloy Steel Castings Limited
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion Regarding Retainer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Advocate/Respondent was retained by the Client/Applicant to act in Milimani CMCC No. 9772 of 2006.
- 2 Whether there is evidence of instructions issued by the Client/Applicant to the Advocate/Respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Advocate/Respondent failed to demonstrate, by way of documentary evidence or otherwise, that they were retained by the Client/Applicant to act in Milimani CMCC No. 9772 of 2006. The Client/Applicant provided evidence that another firm, Maosa & Company Advocates, was instructed and filed the suit. The Advocate/Respondent did not file any response or submissions to counter the Client/Applicant's assertions or to prove the existence of a retainer. Consequently, the court held that the Advocate/Respondent was not retained by the Client/Applicant and allowed the application in favour of the Client/Applicant.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The Advocate/Respondent was not retained by Alloy Steel Castings Limited to act on their behalf in Milimani CMCC No. 9772 of 2006.
- Costs of the application awarded to the Client/Applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION-MILIMANI
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.178 OF 2017
NGUGI MWANGI &CO. ADVOCATES………………ADVOCATE/RESP
VERSUS
ALLOY STEEL CASTINGS LIMITED……………………CLIENT/APPL
R U L I N G
This is a ruling on Notice of Motion dated 9th April 2018 filed by the Client/Applicant. It seeks determination on retainer.
Grounds on the face of the application are as follows:-
· That that the Applicant/Client herein dispute issuing instructions to the Applicant to represent the in Milimani CMCC Case Number 9772 of 2006
· That the Applicant/Client instructed the firm of Maosa & Company Advocates to file that suit; that the Applicant is a stranger to the Respondent.
The application is supported by the Affidavit of Tejwant S.Sagoo the Director of the Respondent Company.
He restated grounds on the face of the application. He attached Plaint to confirm that the firm of Maosa & Company Advocates filed the suit. He averred that the Respondent has never retained services of the Applicant/Advocate herein.
The Applicant/Advocate never filed response to the application herein. I have not also seen any submissions filed by the Applicant/Advocate.
Upon dispute being raised by the Client on issuance of instructions, it was incumbent upon the Advocate to demonstrate that they were indeed instructed by the Client. No document has been filed to show that the Advocate received instructions from the Applicant herein to act in Milimani CMCC No. 9772 of 2006. Despite being given time to file response to this application, the Advocate/Applicant failed to do so.
From the foregoing, I find that the Advocate/Respondent has failed to demonstrate that the Client/Applicant retained the firm of Ngugi Mwangi & Co. Advocates to act in Milimani CMCC No. 9772 of 2006.
FINAL ORDERS
1. The Advocate herein was not retained by ALLOY STEEL CASTINGS LIMITED to act on their behalf inMilimani CMCC No. 9772 of 2006.
2. Costs of this application to the Client/Applicant
Ruling Delivered, DatedandSignedatNairobithis6thday ofDecember, 2018
RACHEL NGETICH
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF
SAKINA: COURT ASSISTANT
OWADE H/B FOR MR. MULI: COUNSEL FOR CLIENT/APPLICANT
NGUGI MWANIKI: COUNSEL FOR ADVOCATE/RESPONDENT