JA Guserwa & Company Advocates v Molonket

5. The Client contends that the court determined the Advocate’s reference and ordered her (the Advocate) to pay her (the Client) Ksh. 240,272.51. She avers that she accepted the verdict in a bid to bring the dispute to a close. 6. The Client avers that the proposed appeal has no prospects of success. She therefore contends that the instant motion is unmerited and is only intended to delay conclusion of the case. 7. The Client prays for the motion to be rejected. However, she avers that should the court be persuaded to grant the request by the Advocate, then it should order her to deposit the amount in dispute in a joint interest earning account in the names of the advocates for the parties. Analysis 8. Regulation 11(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides that an appeal does not lie against an order from a reference except with the leave of the court. As such, the Advocate has appropriately moved the court for leave to appeal its decision of 28th November 2025. 9. In Chaudhri & Associates v Robert Bosch East Africa [2026] KEELRC 667 (KLR), the court stated that in an application of this nature, the applicant ought to demonstrate that the proposed appeal is not irredeemably hopeless. In Majanja Luseno & Co. Advocates v Patani [2023] KEHC 17580 (KLR), the court observed that all that it (the court) is required to establish whilst considering whether to grant such application is the presence of a credible appeal with a realistic chance of success. However, it (the court) should do so without purporting to sit on appeal on its own decision and without placing unreasonable barriers in the way of the applicant’s desire to test the impugned decision on appeal. 10. In the instant case, the Advocate contends that the award which was made by the taxing ocer of the court in her favour was too low having regard to the value of the subject matter in the parent le. She further contends that the taxing ocer’s order that she refunds the Client the sum of Ksh. 990,273.00 was without basis and that she expected that this court will nd as much. As such, it is her case that this court erred by failing to fault the said order in its entirety. 11. Similarly, the Advocate expresses the view that the court order in the reference directing her to refund the Client the sum of Ksh. 240,272.51 was without justication. As such, she contends that she should be allowed to challenge it on appeal. 12. 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. As such and having regard to the totality of the facts before me, I hold the view that she has made a case for the grant of leave to appeal against the impugned decision. In the premises, I grant the request for leave to appeal against the decision. 13. The Advocate has also sought for an order for stay of execution of the impugned order pending appeal. In response, the Client has stated that if the court is minded to grant the request, it should order the amount in question to be deposited in a joint account in the names of the lawyers on record for the parties. Having regard to the foregoing, I allow the request for stay of execution for the amount in dispute subject to the Advocate depositing the sum in dispute in a joint interest earning account in the names of the lawyers on record for the parties within 21 days of this order. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2577/eng@2026-09-25 2

page 2 of 3

Conclusion 14. In conclusion and after evaluating the application, the adavit evidence on record, the submissions by the parties and the applicable law, the court issues the following orders:a. The court grants the Advocate’s request for leave to appeal against the decision dated 28th November 2025. b. 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. c. Costs of the application are granted to the Client. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ON THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 B. O. M. MANANI JUDGE In the presence of: …………….for the Applicant …………….for the Respondent Order In light of the directions issued on 12th July 2022 by her Ladyship, the Chief Justice with respect to online court proceedings, this decision has been delivered to the parties online with their consent, the parties having waived compliance with Rule 28 (3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules which requires that all judgments and rulings shall be dated, signed and delivered in the open court. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2577/eng@2026-09-25 3

page 3 of 3