Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedAppeal 111 of 2019· [2022] KECA 901 (KLR)

Asige Keverenge & Anyanzwa Advocates v Leisure Lodges Limited

Court of Appeal
13 May 2022
3,067 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that lawyers must account for client money they hold, even when it comes from company liquidators.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court of Appeal at Mombasa (S.G. Kairu, P. Nyamweya and J. Lesiit, JJA) dismissed an appeal by Asige Keverenge & Anyanzwa Advocates against a High Court judgment (P.J.O. Otieno, J., 23 June 2017) ordering them to render accounts to Leisure Lodges Limited over Kshs. 5,000,000 transmitted to them on 15 February 2001 by interim liquidators of the company. The sole substantive issue was whether the money was deposited with the Advocates in their capacity as advocates for the respondent and, if so, whether the order to account was proper. The Court held that the letter of 15 February 2001, written on the respondent's letterhead and identifying the respondent's funds as the source, showed the interim liquidators were acting for the company, not personally; the Advocates therefore stood in an advocate-client relationship with the respondent. Applying Mohamed Faki Khatib and Kim Jong Kyu, the Court affirmed that an advocate with a fiduciary duty to account must maintain a proper paper trail; the Advocates gave no explanation of how the funds were dealt with, so the trial court could conclude no disbursement was made. The Court declined to address grounds 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the memorandum of appeal, which related to a separate ruling of 12 October 2018 not before it. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent, affirming the High Court judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Advocates acted for the respondent or for the interim liquidators personally

Holding

The Court affirmed that the funds were deposited with the Advocates in their capacity as advocates for the respondent; the interim liquidators acted for the company, not personally.

Reasoning

The letter of 15 February 2001 was on the respondent's letterhead, identified the source of the funds as the respondent's, and instructed the Advocates to hold the money in a joint interest-earning account pending instructions on legal matters. The interim liquidators, appointed over the company, did not act in their personal capacity. The timing of the letter, a day before the liquidation was discharged, did not alter the character of the transaction.

p. 5
02

Whether the Advocates were bound to render an account

Holding

Yes. Having found the money belonged to the respondent as client, the Advocates were under a legal and professional duty to account; in the absence of explanation, the court could conclude no disbursement was made.

Reasoning

Relying on Mohamed Faki Khatib and Kim Jong Kyu, the Court held that an advocate with a fiduciary duty to account must satisfactorily discharge it with a proper paper trail. The Advocates filed no affidavit showing where the funds were banked or how disbursed, despite being given the opportunity by the trial court, so the order to render accounts within 30 days was proper.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Funds received by an advocate on behalf of a client attract a fiduciary and professional duty to account, and the advocate must have a proper paper trail of monies received and paid out.
  • Where funds of a company in interim liquidation are transmitted to advocates on the company's letterhead by interim liquidators acting for the company, the advocates-client relationship is with the company, not the liquidators personally.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
  2. 2.Judgment of the High Court of 23 June 2017 ordering the Advocates to render accounts within 30 days left undisturbed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Companies Act (Cap 486) (repealed)Section 241
  • Companies Act (Cap 486) (repealed)Section 241(2)
  • Advocate Accounts RulesRule 13

Cases cited (2)

  • Kim Jong Kyu v Housing Finance Co Ltd & 2 Others
    [2015] eKLR

    Fiduciary duty of an advocate to account for monies received

  • Mohamed Faki Khatib Practising as Khatib & Co Advocates v Farid Ahmed Swaleh & Another
    [2021] eKLR

    Advocate's fiduciary duty to account and need for a proper paper trail of transactions

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
High Court Civil Case No. 279 of 2004 (O.S.)
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction under the Constitution and the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction over High Court civil decisions

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Asige Keverenge & Anyanzwa Advocates v Leisure Lodges Limited", Case Analysis (2022). Appeal 111 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/901/eng@2022-05-13

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.