[2016] KEHC 211 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 211 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff, a registered valuer, was instructed by the defendants to conduct a valuation, which was duly performed. The fee note raised by the plaintiff was in accordance with the prescribed scale of fees under the Valuers Act and relevant legal notice. The court held that deviation from the prescribed fees is not permitted unless sanctioned by the Board, and any such deviation would amount to professional misconduct. The defendants' argument of an oral agreement for a lower fee was rejected as contrary to the mandatory legal framework. The court further found that the email from the 3rd defendant constituted an unequivocal admission of the debt as against him, but...

Citation
[2016] KEHC 211 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Realty Valuers East Africa Limited; Defendant: Grace Muthoni Githegi; Defendant: Annie Githegi; Defendant: Anthony Gacheru; Defendant: Gladys Njoki Githegi; Defendant: Joseph Ndungu Warui
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Case Number
Civil Suit 631 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for plaintiff
Judges
F Tuiyott
Legal Topics
Professional Fees, Summary Judgment, Valuation Services, Contractual Admission
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Professional Fees Summary Judgment Valuation Services Contractual Admission

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Realty Valuers East Africa Limited

Plaintiff

Grace Muthoni Githegi

Defendant

Annie Githegi

Defendant

Anthony Gacheru

Defendant

Gladys Njoki Githegi

Defendant

Joseph Ndungu Warui

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an express and unequivocal admission of the plaintiff's claim by the defendants.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's fees are fixed by law and must be paid as raised.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff, a registered valuer, was instructed by the defendants to conduct a valuation, which was duly performed. The fee note raised by the plaintiff was in accordance with the prescribed scale of fees under the Valuers Act and relevant legal notice. The court held that deviation from the prescribed fees is not permitted unless sanctioned by the Board, and any such deviation would amount to professional misconduct. The defendants' argument of an oral agreement for a lower fee was rejected as contrary to the mandatory legal framework. The court further found that the email from the 3rd defendant constituted an unequivocal admission of the debt as against him, but...

Court Disposition

judgment for plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment entered against the defendants jointly and severally for Kshs.13,319,000 plus interest at court rates from the date of filing suit.
  • Defendants to pay the costs of the suit.