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

Mwangangi & Co Advocate v Peter Muli Maingi [2004] KEHC 1474 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 1474 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1474
Citation
[2004] KEHC 1474 (KLR)
Decided
31 December 2004
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil MiscellaneousPostureApplication for stay of execution of taxed costsCoramR. WENDOH
Holding

The application for stay of execution of the taxed costs is allowed with costs to the applicant.

Facts

The applicant/applicant/respondent engaged the respondent/applicant to act for him in HCCC 219/97, was awarded damages but the company was wound up, and the advocate lodged a bill for taxation. The respondent/applicant is in the process of taking out execution proceedings with a view to attaching his property, but no substantive suit has been filed against him.

Issues

  1. Whether the absence of a substantive suit filed against the respondent/applicant before the execution of the taxed costs is in violation of Section 48 of the Advocates Act.
  2. Whether the application for execution of the decree is illegal and should be stayed pending the filing of a substantive suit by the respondent/applicant.

Reasoning

The court found that the absence of a substantive suit filed against the respondent/applicant before the execution of the taxed costs contravenes Section 48 of the Advocates Act, and the process of execution is illegal.

Outcome

Application allowed with costs to the applicant.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the taxed costs until a substantive suit is filed by the respondent/applicant against the applicant.
  • Application for execution of decree filed in court on 18.11.2003 is illegal.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Advocates Act
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 0.0 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case