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 AppealDismissedCivil Appeal E094 of 2021

Gakinya t/a Hari Gakinya & Company Advocates v Nondadhona Company Limited & 155 others & 3 others

Court of Appeal
2 October 2026
2,718 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that an advocate's oral undertaking given in open court is fully binding, and the advocate must personally refund the money.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court of Appeal at Nakuru (Mativo, Kairaria and Hassan, JJA) dismissed an appeal by advocate Hari Gakinya against a ruling of the Environment and Land Court (Sila, J.) of 31st May 2017, which had enforced a consent recorded on 25th April 2013 and a professional undertaking given on 8th July 2015, ordering the appellant's firm jointly and severally with the plaintiffs to refund Kshs.12,974,000 to Egeswa Company Limited and Kshs.1,181,000 to John Omundi Ogango, with liberty to execute against the plaintiffs and the firm's proprietor. The appeal condensed into three grounds: enforceability of the undertaking, the appellant's liability to refund, and the award of interest. The Court held that the consent was properly recorded in court, that a certified court record is presumed prima facie accurate, and that an advocate's professional undertaking - whether oral or written, and even if not signed - is personally binding and enforceable through the court's inherent summary and punitive jurisdiction over its officers, breach amounting to professional misconduct. The argument that the undertaking was not in writing was rejected as a fresh issue raised for the first time on appeal, and in any event on the merits. The award of interest was upheld as flowing from the court's supervisory and disciplinary jurisdiction over advocates. The ruling below was affirmed and the appeal dismissed with costs to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The Court also admonished counsel for citing authorities without citations.

Key legal issues

#
01

Enforceability of the professional undertaking

Holding

The undertaking was enforceable; it was recorded in court and need not be in writing or signed.

Reasoning

The consent and undertaking were recorded in open court and documented in the certified record, which is presumed accurate. An undertaking is an unequivocal declaration of intention, oral or written, grounded in the court's inherent summary jurisdiction over its officers rather than contract formalities. Reliance by the other party, not signature, is the binding factor. The argument that it was not in writing was raised for the first time on appeal and could not be entertained.

p. 5
02

Personal liability of the appellant to refund the purchase price

Holding

The appellant, having given the undertaking, is personally and jointly liable with the plaintiffs to refund the purchase price.

Reasoning

Advocates are officers of the court under the Advocates Act; undertakings are enforced through the court's inherent punitive jurisdiction, not ordinary contract principles. An advocate recorded as giving a consent-order undertaking cannot escape liability by claiming to have acted merely for a client. Failure to perform is a prima facie case of professional misconduct, and the court may order execution against the advocate personally.

p. 4
03

Award of interest on monies held under the undertaking

Holding

The trial court's award of interest was within its powers and not faulted.

Reasoning

The power to award interest on monies held pursuant to an advocate's undertaking stems from the court's inherent supervisory and disciplinary jurisdiction over advocates as officers of the court, paired with statutory civil procedure provisions. The court awards interest to fulfil the demands of justice, restore the aggrieved party, and maintain the honour of the profession, and may order release of the principal plus interest where funds are wrongfully withheld.

Legal principles established

#
  • An advocate's professional undertaking need not be in writing or signed to be binding and enforceable; an undertaking recorded orally in open court is valid and binding.
  • An advocate who records a consent order and gives a professional undertaking is personally bound; breach constitutes professional misconduct enforceable through the court's inherent summary jurisdiction.
  • A party cannot raise a new issue on appeal that was never pleaded, raised or determined before the trial court.
  • A properly certified court record is presumed prima facie accurate unless evidence to the contrary is presented.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru dated 31st May 2017 in ELC Case No. 268 of 2013 is affirmed
  2. 2.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the 2nd and 3rd respondents
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Nakuru
ELC Case No. 268 of 2013
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over appeals from the Environment and Land Court (first appellate review of a ruling)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gakinya t/a Hari Gakinya & Company Advocates v Nondadhona Company Limited & 155 others & 3 others", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal E094 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2081/eng@2026-10-02

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