Direct Line Assurance Company Limited v Hamilton Harrisson & Mathews Advocates (Miscellaneous Civil Application E1004 of 2020) [2021] KEHC 251 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (19 November 2021) (Ruling)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 251
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 251 (KLR)
- Decided
- 19 November 2021
The Advocates had instructions from the Client to represent them in the suit, and the instruction fees awarded were not excessive and based on the correct principles.
Facts
The Client instructed the Advocates to act for the 6th to 16th defendants in a suit, and the Deputy Registrar awarded the Advocates instruction fees based on the Bill of Costs.
Issues
- Whether the Advocates had instructions from the Client to represent them in the suit
- Whether the instruction fees awarded were excessive and based on the wrong principles
Reasoning
The Court of Appeal in Kamlesh Manshuklal Damji Pattni v Nasir Ibrahim Ali and 2 Others (2005) eKLR held that advocates should not swear affidavits on behalf of their clients when their clients are readily available to do so. The Court found that the Client’s advocate was well versed in the matter and the Advocates’ objection was not valid.
Outcome
The Client’s reference was dismissed, and the Advocates were awarded KES 6,303,946.00 in instruction fees and KES 30,000.00 in costs.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the Advocates against the Client for the sum of KES 6,303,946.00
- Awarded KES 30,000.00 in costs
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Advocates Remuneration Order, 2009 and 2014
- Advocates (Practice) Rules, 1966
Cases cited (2)
- Kamlesh Manshuklal Damji Pattni v Nasir Ibrahim Ali and 2 Others NAI CA Civil Appl. No. 354 of 2004 [2005] eKLR
- Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] EA 497
Loading judgment…