Amina Mohamed Kasinga & 22 others v Kikambala Housing Estate Limited & 2 others [2018] KEELC 4001 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court stopped a law firm from acting against its former client in a land dispute, ruling that confidential loan information it once received could be misused.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Existence of advocate-client relationship
An advocate-client relationship existed between Anjarwalla & Khanna Advocates and the 1st Defendant at some point, as evidenced by correspondence and payment of legal fees
The court examined email correspondence of August 2014 between Akash Devani of the firm and Aziz Shahame of the 1st Defendant, in which the firm claimed to have prepared securities and awaited fees, and the reply acknowledged payments made through the firm's office. Together with payment of Kshs 3,647,400 and further sums, the court concluded the firm had acted for the 1st Defendant in the loan and change of user transaction.
Conflict of interest and confidentiality
The firm obtained confidential information while acting for the 1st Defendant and should be restrained from acting for the Interested Party against it
Relying on Section 134 of the Evidence Act and authorities including King Woolen Mills and Delphis Bank, the court held the loan and security documentation necessarily involved release of confidential information to the firm. The risk of prejudice to the 1st Defendant outweighed the inconvenience of delay, justifying disqualification despite the late filing of the application.
Striking out pleadings filed by the disqualified firm
Striking out the pleadings was refused even though the firm is disqualified
The court held that striking out pleadings would merely delay the suit and increase costs, and would not serve any useful purpose, since the parties' positions were already evident from the pleadings. Only the representation itself was restrained.
Legal principles established
#- The retainer between a common advocate and multiple clients is not tripartite; each client has a separate retainer relationship, and an advocate who acted for a borrower in a loan transaction should not subsequently act for the lender to enforce repayment
- The principle for restraining an advocate from acting against a former client is the prevention of abuse of confidence reposed in the advocate
Court orders
#- 1.An order of mandatory injunction disqualifying Anjarwalla & Khanna Advocates from representing the Interested Party in ELC 207 of 2015 (prayer 2)
- 2.An order that Anjarwalla & Khanna Advocates do not continue to appear for the Interested Party in the suit (prayer 4)
- 3.An order that the Interested Party not be permitted to continue being represented by the firm of Anjarwalla & Khanna in the suit (prayer 5)
- 4.An injunction restraining Anjarwalla & Khanna Advocates, their parties, servants or agents from representing the Interested Party in the suit (prayer 6)
- 5.Costs of the application to the 1st Defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over ELC 207 of 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amina Mohamed Kasinga & 22 others v Kikambala Housing Estate Limited & 2 others [2018] KEELC 4001 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). ELC 207 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/4001/eng@2018-03-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.