Patrick Kimathi Muchena t/a Arimi Kimathi & Company Advocates v Ochieng Opiyo t/a Ochieng Opiyo & Company Advocates; Wanandege Savings & Credit Cooperative Society [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
E.O. Obaga
Judgment Date
October 12, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the 2020 eKLR case summary of Patrick Kimathi Muchena t/a Arimi Kimathi & Company Advocates vs. Ochieng Opiyo t/a Ochieng Opiyo & Company Advocates & Wanandege Savings & Credit Cooperative Society. Discover key legal insights and implications from this judgment.

Case Brief: Patrick Kimathi Muchena t/a Arimi Kimathi & Company Advocates v Ochieng Opiyo t/a Ochieng Opiyo & Company Advocates; Wanandege Savings & Credit Cooperative Society (Intended 2nd Respondent) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Patrick Kimathi Muchena T/A Arimi Kimathi & Company Advocates v. Ochieng Opiyo T/A Ochieng Opiyo & Company Advocates
- Case Number: ELC CASE NO 58 OF 2019 (OS)
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Milimani, Kenya
- Date Delivered: 12th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): E.O. Obaga
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue presented before the court was whether Wanandege Savings and Credit Cooperative Society should be enjoined as the second respondent in the proceedings, particularly in relation to a professional undertaking that had been breached.

3. Facts of the Case:
The applicant, Patrick Kimathi Muchena, a practicing advocate, had entered into a professional undertaking with the respondent, Ochieng Opiyo, on 27th August 2018. When the applicant failed to fulfill this undertaking, the respondent initiated legal proceedings on 20th February 2020 to enforce it. The parties subsequently negotiated a settlement regarding the undertaking, which included an agreement on costs amounting to Kshs.250,000. However, the applicant did not return the signed amended consent for filing, prompting the respondent to seek a judgment on admission. The applicant later sought to include Wanandege Savings and Credit Cooperative Society as a second respondent, arguing that the delay in disbursing funds by the society contributed to the breach of the undertaking.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with the respondent filing an originating summons to enforce the professional undertaking. After negotiations, the parties reached a settlement on costs, which led to the filing of a consent. However, the applicant's failure to submit the signed consent led to the respondent's application for judgment on admission. On 23rd September 2020, the applicant's counsel indicated the intention to file a motion to enjoin the savings and credit cooperative, which was opposed by the respondent.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the principles surrounding professional undertakings between advocates and the obligations they entail. The court also evaluated the requirements for enjoining a party in legal proceedings.
- Case Law: Relevant precedents were not explicitly mentioned in the ruling, but the court's reasoning drew on general principles of professional responsibility and the obligations of advocates to ensure they have the necessary funds before making undertakings.
- Application: The court concluded that there was no necessity to enjoin Wanandege Savings and Credit Cooperative Society in the proceedings, as the professional undertaking was solely between the applicant and the respondent. The court reasoned that any issues regarding the applicant's failure to secure funds were the applicant's responsibility, and thus the application to enjoin the society lacked merit.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the applicant's motion to enjoin Wanandege Savings and Credit Cooperative Society, affirming that the professional undertaking was a matter between the original parties. The ruling underscored the accountability of advocates in ensuring compliance with their professional commitments.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions recorded in this ruling.

8. Summary:
The court ruled against the applicant's request to add Wanandege Savings and Credit Cooperative Society as a second respondent in the case. The decision highlighted the importance of professional responsibility among advocates, emphasizing that failure to secure funds before making an undertaking is an issue for the advocate alone. This ruling reinforces the legal principle that professional undertakings must be honored and that advocates are responsible for their commitments.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Patrick-Kimathi-Muchena-t-a-Arimi-Kimathi--Company-Advocates-v-Ochieng-Opiyo-t-a-Ochieng-Opiyo--Company-Advocates-Wanandege-Savings--Credit-Cooperative-Society-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1987_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries