JA Guserwa & Company Advocates v Molonket
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a law firm to appeal an order to refund a client, but only if it first deposits the disputed money in a joint account.
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 Advocate should be granted leave under rule 11(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order to appeal against the ruling dated 28th November 2025
- 2.Whether stay of execution of the ruling should be granted pending the intended appeal
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Test for grant of leave to appeal against an order arising from a taxing officer's reference
Leave was granted because the proposed appeal was not irredeemably hopeless; the applicant is entitled to a second opinion.
The court applied its own decision in Chaudhri & Associates and Majanja Luseno, holding that the applicant need only demonstrate a credible appeal with a realistic chance of success. The court must not sit on appeal on its own decision nor place unreasonable barriers before the applicant. Although the court disagreed with the Advocate's position, that alone did not render the appeal hopeless, so leave was granted.
Stay of execution pending appeal from a reference
Stay granted subject to a conditional deposit of the decretal amount.
The Client proposed that if stay were granted, the disputed amount be deposited in a joint interest earning account in the names of the parties' advocates. The court adopted that proposal, allowing stay of execution of the order directing the refund of Ksh. 240,272.51 on condition of deposit within 21 days.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal does not lie against an order from a reference under the Advocates Remuneration Order except with leave of the court.
- On an application for leave to appeal from a reference, the applicant need only show the proposed appeal is not irredeemably hopeless, without the court sitting on appeal on its own decision.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the Advocate to appeal against the decision dated 28th November 2025
- 2.Stay of execution pending determination of the proposed appeal granted on condition that Ksh. 240,272.51 is deposited in an interest earning account in the joint names of the advocates on record for the parties within 21 days of the order
- 3.Costs of the application granted to the Client
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order - leave of the court to appeal against an order from a reference
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.
The court may not be in agreement with the Advocate’s position on the contested issues. However, that alone does not render her proposed appeal irredeemably hopeless. She is entitled to a second opinion on the matter.
The court grants the Advocate’s request for leave to appeal against the decision dated 28th November 2025.
The court grants the Advocate’s request for stay of execution pending determination of the proposed appeal on condition that the amount of Ksh. 240,272.51 is deposited in an interest earning account in the joint names of the advocates on record for the parties within 21 days of this order.
Costs of the application are granted to the Client.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting refund figures in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "JA Guserwa & Company Advocates v Molonket", Case Analysis (2026). Miscellaneous Application E25 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2577/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.