Mbugua v Nairobi Water and Sewerage Co Ltd (Civil Appeal E684 of 2021) [2024] KECA 1231 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that a payment accepted by your former lawyer settles your case — your complaint is against the lawyer, not the other party.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the trial Court erred in declining to confirm or endorse the computation of the appellant's terminal dues where the decretal sum had been computed, accepted by the appellant's then advocates on record, and paid to them
- 2.Whether the appellant's applications were overtaken by events given the settlement and payment effected through his former advocates
- 3.Whether the appellant could disown the computation and payment accepted by his previous advocates on his behalf
Key legal issues
#Effect of payment made to and accepted by a party's advocate on record in satisfaction of a decretal award
The trial Court correctly found the applications for confirmation of computation and enforcement to have been overtaken by events, because the decretal sum had been computed, accepted by the appellant's counsel then on record, and paid by cheque to that firm before new counsel came on record.
The trial Court had directed parties to tabulate terminal dues and approach the Court only on disagreement. The respondent tabulated the dues; the appellant's then advocates requested the computation, called for payment and gave bank details; a cheque for Kshs.310,345.75 was sent and received by that firm. No proof of disassociation was placed before the trial Court at the time of the applications. The new counsel came on record only after the settlement and payment. The appellant's remedy, if any, is against his former advocates.
Whether the appeal against the ruling of 18th September 2020 had merit
The appeal was without merit and was dismissed, the Court holding that the appellant was pursuing the wrong party and the wrong remedy.
The material before the trial Judge at the time of the two motions showed an agreement on terminal dues between the appellant's advocate and the respondent and payment made to the appellant's advocate. The letter disowning the settlement was produced for the first time in support of a later review application. The Court found no error in the trial Court's conclusions and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Legal principles established
#- Where a party's advocate on record accepts a computation of decretal dues and receives payment, the client is bound and cannot, through later applications to confirm a different computation or enforce the decree, relitigate that settlement; the client's remedy lies against the former advocate.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal/appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal against a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (specific provision not stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Confirmation and/or endorsement of the appellant's own computation of terminal dues and enforcement of the decree (including garnishee orders)
The computation of Kshs.310,345.15 had been agreed by the appellant's then advocates on record and payment by cheque was made to and accepted by that firm; the appellant's grievance lies against his former advocates, not the respondent or the ruling
Costs
The appeal is dismissed with costs (costs to the respondent)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
This therefore means that by the time the present counsel for the claimant came on record, the decretal sum had already been settled. For the foregoing reasons, the application by the claimant is overtaken by events.
We perceive that the appellant is aggrieved by the settlement reached on his behalf by his previous advocates. It is to those advocates that any grievance should be directed and not at the impugned ruling. As stated at the beginning of this decision, the appellant is barking up the wrong tree.
The appeal is without merit and is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains internal date inconsistencies: the trial ruling is described as dated 18th September 2020 but is elsewhere referred to as the 'ruling of 16th September 2020', and the amended motion is described as 'amended on 6th April 2020' in one place and '6th March 2020' in the trial Court's ruling as quoted.
The judgment notes an unresolved tension in the trial Court's review decision, which proceeded on the basis that an appeal had been preferred when, on the Court of Appeal's observation, the appeal had not yet been instituted.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbugua v Nairobi Water and Sewerage Co Ltd (Civil Appeal E684 of 2021) [2024] KECA 1231 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1231/eng@2024-09-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.