[2012] KEHC 777 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 777 (KLR)

The court found that the purported fee agreement between the advocate and the client was not signed by the client or her duly authorized agent as required by Section 45(1) of the Advocates Act. The absence of a signed agreement meant that the statutory requirements for a valid and enforceable advocate-client fee...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 777 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Omar Kemal Amin & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Susanna Rubbioli aka Susanna Cembran as the administrator of the estate of Alessandro Cembran (deceased)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 70 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Certification and Payment of Advocate Client Costs
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
CM Njagi
Legal Topics
Advocate Remuneration, Fee Agreements, Enforceability of Contracts, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Advocate Remuneration Fee Agreements Enforceability of Contracts Taxation of Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omar Kemal Amin & Co. Advocates

Applicant

Susanna Rubbioli aka Susanna Cembran as the administrator of the estate of Alessandro Cembran (deceased)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Certification and Payment of Advocate Client Costs

  1. 1 Whether the fee agreement between the advocate and client is valid and enforceable under Section 45 of the Advocates Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to the certified costs as claimed based on the alleged agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a charge over the estate property and interest on the claimed sum.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the purported fee agreement between the advocate and the client was not signed by the client or her duly authorized agent as required by Section 45(1) of the Advocates Act. The absence of a signed agreement meant that the statutory requirements for a valid and enforceable advocate-client fee agreement were not met. The court held that statutory provisions prescribing the form of such agreements are mandatory and cannot be overridden by general contractual principles or by subsequent correspondence. As a result, the agreement was unenforceable, and the applicant was not entitled to the orders sought for certification and payment of the claimed costs. The proper course...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.