Eunice C. Soi v Bomet Water Company Ltd [2018] KEELC 3003 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A company that lets its lawyer keep acting for it must pay his fees, even after his employment elsewhere ends.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an advocate who ceased employment with the County Government could continue acting for the Defendant on oral instructions
Yes. The court accepted Mr. Mugumya's evidence that he received oral instructions from the Managing Director to continue acting, and found the Defendant was not forthright and had acquiesced in his continued representation.
The court found it common ground that Mugumya's employment ended on 30/9/2017, but the Defendant took no steps to appoint another advocate for months, Matwere's Notice of Change of Advocates was not served on Mugumya, and Matwere did not attend court between January and May 2018 while Mugumya did. The court therefore preferred Mugumya's account of verbal instructions and found the Defendant's conduct explained the continuation of representation.
Whether documents filed by Mr. Mugumya after 30/9/2017 ought to be expunged
No. The Defendant was aware he was acting for them, so there was no reason to expunge the documents.
Because the court accepted that the Defendant had acquiesced in and had knowledge of Mugumya's continued representation, the acts done under that representation stand. The court saw no good reason to expunge the filings and directed handover of the file to avoid delay in the main suit.
Legal principles established
#- A party that acquiesces in an advocate's continued representation cannot later disown the acts done under that representation or resist liability for the advocate's fees
- Where a Notice of Change of Advocates is not served on the outgoing advocate, the outgoing advocate may justifiably continue to act in ignorance of the change
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the objection to expunge documents filed by Mr. Mugumya after 30/9/2017
- 2.The Defendant to pay Mr. Mugumya's fees for the period between October 2017 to 10/5/2018
- 3.Mr. Mugumya at liberty to file his Bill of Costs for taxation if the fees are not paid
- 4.Mr. Mugumya to hand over the file to Mr. Matwere
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the court over conduct of proceedings and representation of parties (not expressly stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Eunice C. Soi v Bomet Water Company Ltd [2018] KEELC 3003 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3003/eng@2018-05-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.