[2024] KEELC 541 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 541 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had raised an issue of general importance regarding the distinction between retainer fees and legal fees, which warranted consideration by an appellate court. The court also noted that the applicant should not be denied access to justice, especially where there was no demonstration...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 541 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Njeru, Nyaga & Co. Advocates LLP; Respondent: Erastus Thoronjo Muriuki
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E065 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
EK Wabwoto
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Advocate Client Costs, Retainer Fees, Right to Fair Hearing
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Advocate Client Costs Retainer Fees Right to Fair Hearing

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Njeru, Nyaga & Co. Advocates LLP

Applicant

Erastus Thoronjo Muriuki

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal against the ruling dated 5th May 2022.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's delay in filing the application was justified and excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if leave to appeal is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had raised an issue of general importance regarding the distinction between retainer fees and legal fees, which warranted consideration by an appellate court. The court also noted that the applicant should not be denied access to justice, especially where there was no demonstration of prejudice to the respondent if leave to appeal was granted. The delay in filing the application was attributed to registry delays, which the court found excusable. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion in favor of the applicant and granted leave to appeal against the ruling dated 5th May 2022, subject to compliance with specified timelines.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicant to file an appeal against the ruling dated 5th May 2022 within 14 days of delivery of this ruling.
  • The applicant shall compile, file and serve the record of appeal within 30 days from the date hereof.