Alice Muhonja Kirambi & 3 others v Billy Amendi T/A Billy Amendi & Company Advocates

beneficiaries of the Estate of the said Henry Lanogwa Kirambi (Deceased). They have annexed to the Summons, copies of the supporting documents, including the Sale Agreement. 4. They have stated that they are the ones that instructed this Advocate Billy Amendi Advocate. If that be true, then they will fall within the definition of “Client.” The Advocate-Client relationship is fiduciary relationship and one of trust. In which the Advocate owes to the Client, a fiduciary duty to account for such monies. 5. Those being matters for trial, and that require the adduction of evidence and the calling of witnesses, this Court cannot at this stage delve into them. But has only summarized these facts, just to give a factual background and context. 6. Those were the Plaintiffs grievances in this suit and the Plaintiffs had in the Originating Summons framed the following as the issues for determination: 1. When did the Defendant receive the said sum of Ksh 14.5 million? 2. How much was his legal fees? 3. How much of that money, has he released to the Plaintiffs? 4. Whether the Defendant is accountable for interest on that money? 5. How much is due and owing to the Plaintiffs? 6. Who is to pay the costs of this suit? 7. While those were to be the issues for determination at trial, this suit never made it to trial, as it was dismissed prematurely for want of prosecution on 25th January 2023. 7. The suit was subsequently dismissed by this Court, for want of prosecution. Which dismissal, followed a Notice to Show Cause, at whose hearing, the Plaintiffs and this Advocate were absent. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the Plaintiffs filed an Application dated 29th November 2024. The same which is by a Notice of Motion and supported by the Supporting Affidavit of Eric Ochieng their Advocate, sought orders that the said dismissal be set aside, and the suit be reinstated. 8. The said Supporting Affidavit and the grounds of the Application have stated that the Plaintiffs and their Advocate were not aware of the Notice to Show Cause hence that their absence on the day of the Notice is excusable. 9. It is this Application that is the subject of this ruling. The Application has been vehemently opposed by the Defendant through his Replying Affidavit of 12th March 2025, his Further Affidavit of 22nd May 2025 , and his Further Further Affidavit of 22nd July 2025. In which he has justified and supported the dismissal of the suit, and urged that this Application be dismissed as well. 10. The Application proceeded by way of written submissions. With each party filing its submissions. The Plaintiffs’ submissions are dated 7th May 2025. While the Defendant’s submissions are dated 22nd July 2025. 11. To determine this Application, I have carefully distilled the Application (together with its Supporting Affidavit); the Affidavits the Defendant filed in response; and the parties’ rival submissions. I have also perused the Originating Summons to ascertain the nature of the claim, the grievances, and the Plaintiff’s cause of action. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2657/eng@2026-01-22 2

page 2 of 3

Determination 12. The issues raised by the Plaintiffs in the Originating Summons, are very weighty and deserve serious and extensive consideration and evaluation. The subject monies they are claiming from their Advocate, are proceeds of the sale of an asset belonging to an estate of a deceased- their father the late Henry Lanogwa Kirambi (Deceased). For Estates of deceased persons and the assets in them, the High Court is a custodian. Hence this Court has a duty to protect them. 13. Besides, the amount of money to which this suit relates, is colossal and in millions. Further the dismissal was pursuant to a Notice to Show Cause for want of prosecution. Hence was not a merit determination; hence this Court has never interrogated the facts of this suit and made a determination. As the dismissal order never addressed the issue of the claimed monies; the duty of the Advocate; and what the fate of those monies is. 14. This being a court of justice and a court of equity, it ought to prefer determining cases on their merits, rather than on technicalities and procedure-related defaults. This suit asserts a fiduciary relationship and is seeking to enforce an Advocate’s duty to account to his Client. Which is a fiduciary duty resulting from the fact of an Advocate-Client relationship being one of trust. 15. Advocates must be accountable to their clients, and must account to them for any, and all the monies received by them on their behalf. This in my view, is an absolute duty that is not limited by any legal exception. 16. This Application is seeking reinstatement of this suit, so that the suit can be heard and determined on the merits. The right to be heard is sacrosanct. That right is to both the Plaintiff and the Defendant. It is not only logical that the parties be heard; it is also in the interest of equity and ends of justice. 17. In the end therefore, this Application has merit, hence is hereby allowed. With the consequence that the dismissal order of 25th January 2023 dismissing this suit for want of prosecution, is hereby set aside; and this suit is hereby re-instated. The costs of the Application shall be in the cause. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2026. PROF (DR) NIXON SIFUNA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2657/eng@2026-01-22 3

page 3 of 3