Mohamed v Abdullahi & Associates Advocates

documents to any person for any purpose without your written consent and that you will continue to hold us liable.” 3. The Applicant asserts that the purchaser failed to honor the terms of the sale agreement. Despite repeated demands for return of the original certicate of lease, the Respondent has allegedly failed to honour the undertaking. Meanwhile, unknown persons have begun visiting the property, creating apprehension that the title is at risk of misuse. 4. In reply, the Respondent advocate concedes issuing the professional undertaking. He further conrms that the purchaser defaulted. However, he contends that the Applicant replaced him with another advocate without notice and proceeded to sue the purchaser. He also asserts that he acted for both parties in the transaction, and that the purchaser instructed him not to release the title documents. Lastly, he argues that the Applicant has not settled his legal fees. Issues for Determination 5. The sole issue for determination before this court is whether the professional undertaking of 29th November 2024 is valid and enforceable or whether the Respondent’s reasons for non-compliance constitute a lawful defence; Analysis 6. A professional undertaking is enforceable unless shown to be illegal, impossible, or fundamentally altered by the beneciary. The wording of the undertaking here is unequivocal. The Respondent undertook to hold the documents to the Applicant’s order and return them on demand. 8. Change of advocates does not extinguish an undertaking. The purchaser’s contrary instructions cannot override an undertaking voluntarily given between the Applicant and his counsel the Respondent herein. Unpaid fees are not a defence to non-compliance. The law clearly outlines the procedure for an advocate is to recover fees from his client. 9. The Court nds that the undertaking is valid, binding, and enforceable. The Respondent thus has no lawful justication for withholding the title. This is notwithstanding that the process of transfer had commenced. 10. The application is therefore allowed in the following terms; A mandatory order to issue compelling release of the original Certicate of Lease within Fourteen (7) days from the date of uploading of Ruling on the CTS. JUDGEMENT SIGNED DATED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 JUDY OMANGE JUDGE In the presence of Court Assistant Catherine Mr. Kimotho holding brief for Obera for Respondent Mr. Karanja for Abdullahi for Respondent JUDGEMENT ELC MISC E 020 OF 2025 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18466/eng@2025-11-27 2

page 2 of 3

2 of 2 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18466/eng@2025-11-27 3

page 3 of 3