SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Dorothy Jemator Kimengech v David Mukii Mereke t/a Mereka & Company Advocates [2020] KEELRC 1127 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 1127 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1127
Citation
[2020] KEELRC 1127 (KLR)
Decided
6 May 2020
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePostureClaimant vs RespondentCoramAbuodha Jorum Nelson
Holding

The court finds that the Respondent did not breach the fee-sharing agreement and dismisses the claimant's claim. The court also dismisses the Respondent's counterclaim for Kshs 150,000/=

Facts

Claimant was employed as an advocate by the Respondent and was entitled to a 15% commission on fees received from clients introduced by her. The claimant alleged that she introduced the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to the Respondent and received a commission of Kshs 701,922/=. The Respondent denied the claimant's allegations and argued that the claimant was not introduced by them.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent breached the fee-sharing agreement by refusing to pay the commission on fees collected from IEBC.
  2. Whether the Respondent should be held liable for the claimant's counterclaim for Kshs 150,000/=

Reasoning

The court finds that the claimant was not introduced by the Respondent to the IEBC and was assigned to follow up on pending fees for work already done. The court dismisses the claimant's claim as the fee-sharing agreement was for new work introduced by the claimant, not collections on pending fee-notes.

Outcome

Both the claimant's claim and the Respondent's counterclaim are dismissed with no order as to costs.

Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case