Lawyer Anthony Ndegwa Kimani who has been sued by Zayn Auto Care Ltd for breach of professional undertaking by failing to pay a balance of Sh420,000


An advocate has been sued for breach of professional undertaking by failing to pay a balance of Sh420,000 for purchase of an apartment.

Lawyer Anthony Ndegwa Kimani was sued by Zayn Auto Care Ltd as the company seeks orders to compel him to pay the balance for his profession undertaking he made on May 6, 2020.

“Anthony Ndegwa Kimani, T/A Ndegwa & Kiarie company Advocates be ordered to pay the Zayn Auto care Ltd Sh420,000.00 at the rate of 5% above the base lending rate of NCBA Bank for the time being, from July 12th 2021 until payment in full in place,” the company says.

The company says through lawyer Mureithi Baragu that Kimani should comply with the said orders within seven days and in default, his assets would be attached without further notice.

Riyaz Hassanain Khimgi, a director of the Zayn Auto Care Ltd says that by a duly executed agreement for sale dated May 6, 2020 the company accepted the offer to purchase the property for Sh7.5M for an apartment in Kilimani.”

In accordance with the terms of agreement, the lawyer was to hold the balance of the purchase price being Sh600,000, pending registration of transfer for a maximum period of 60 days from the compression date, whichever was earlier.

“The period within which the defendant had undertaken to hold the balance of purchase price lapsed and by the letter dated for October 4, 2021, December 9 ,2021 and January 12th 2022 the plaintiff’s Advocate ruled to the defendant requesting fir the release of the balance of purchase price but failed to honour his undertaking thus necessitating these proceedings,” Says Hassanian

Baragu further added that via letter dated January 12, 2022, the Advocate reverted by counter claiming the rents of months of May, June and July 2020 were account of late handover of the property to the purchaser by either payment of the rent areas of deduction of the rent payable from the balance for onward release of residue on or before January 31st 2022.

The company argues that the law firm through its Advocate reverted to the letter by conceding to counter-claim which was computed at sh.180,000 and further demanded the residue which now stood at sh.420,000 which he has failed to release

The defendant gas completely failed and refused to honour the undertaking and persist with that failure and refusal notwithstanding the vendor fully met its obligations and all agreements for sale including partying with the possession of the said property.