Description

CIVIL APPEAL NO 162 OF 1999. MAXWELL M. V STANDARD CHARTERED

1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI

BETWEEN

THE ADMINISTRATORS    THE ESTATE op MAXWELL

MAURICE OMBOGO (DECEASED )  APPELLANT

AND

CHARTF.RÊD BANK KENYA LTD  1ST RESPONDENT

SDCIËTY   KENYA  2ND RESPONDENT

Appeal trom the Ruling and Order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi — Mr Justice A. I. Hayanga given on 26th

February, 1998

in

1. C.C. C. No. 520 of 1997 )

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

TMs is an appeal from the order of the superior court (Hayanga J. ) given on 26th February, 1998, in which, pursuant to 1 fiter•pleader proceedings under Order 33 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules by Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Ltd (the Bank) , he úruerea that two nomxnees of the Law Society of Kenya ( the LSK) be tile signatories of two bank accounts in the name of one Maxwell Ice ùmbogcj (deceased) Instead of the administrators of the deceased’s Intestate estate-

The deceased, who at the time of his death, on 5th July 1995, was an advocate of the High Court of Kenya, was a member Of LSK , and on account of such membership and pursuant to the Advocates (Accounts) Rules, made under the Advocates Act, Cap 16 Laws Of

Kenya, he maintained two bank accounts with the Bank

a.

designated “clients” and “office” accounts. Acting pursuant to The

Soc let y ox Kenya (General) (Amendment) Regulations, 1995, which were puD1xshed In the Kenya Gazette as Legal Notice No. 279 of 1995, tne LSK advxsed the Bank in writing to stop all transactions 1 n tne two bank accounts until advised otherwise by it. Soon t: hereafter the Bank also recexved letters from the advocates of the administrators of the deceased’s estate to the effect that the said admin 1 st razors and not LSK had the legitimate right to operate the two accounts . The suit which gave rise to this appeal was thus provoked .

The aforesaaa suit was commenced by originating summons in accordance w It-n Order 33 rulê 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules . No oral evxcienee was considered necessary as the facts were not in d 1 spur-e . The deceased d led intestate leaving behind a widow and were told from the bar that the widow was initially

T.ne Leyai representative of the deceased’s estate, but no evidence t.aaC fact was presented to us nor can we find any on record. we, however, have on record a copy of a limited grant of letters of

on 1st iiove)ltber , 1996, more than one year after the death of the deceased. it as shown at the bottom as having been amended on 1st November 1996, but the nature of the amendments have not been shown. Be that as it may, the suit was filed in court sometime in March,

18 CIVIL APPEAL NO 162 OF 1999. MAXWELL M. V STANDARD CHARTERED-1-2