REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU Civil Case 82 of 2006 MWANIKI NGIRI............................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS ROBERT MWANIKI GUKEMBA.....................DEFENDANT RULING I have considered the application and heard both counsel on this matter. The spirit and intent of Order III Rule 9 A of the Civil Procedure Rules was to stop a litigant from hoping from one advocate to another while avoiding the payment of fees especially after a matter has been concluded. In this case, both counsel concede that there is a bill of costs Advocate/Client pending before the Deputy Registrar. It is clear:- that the plaintiff herein has not discharged his responsibility to his counsel. The court should not be used to aid him to avoid that responsibility. Mr. Muraguri has been in the matter and handled it upto Judgment level. If he has to be replaced, the plaintiff should pay him what he is owed. As at now, his interests have not been secured and in all fairness, the bill of costs before the Deputy Registrar should be sorted out before the plaintiff herein is allowed to engage another counsel. I appreciate the fact that he has a right of representation by counsel of his choice but that goes hand in hand with his responsibility to ensure that he pays his fees to the counsel on record as the matter was not pro bono. My decision is that the application for leave is denied. Let the plaintiff sort out his pending issues with this advocate on record first before another counsel can be allowed to come on record. W. KARANJA JUDGE 2/7/2008
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.