Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowed· [2025] KECA 2018 (KLR)

Kimani v Kungu (Civil Appeal (Application) E140 of 2022) [2025] KECA 2018 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
28 November 2025
MNMumbi Ngugi
305 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that when a consented Notice of Change of Advocates is already filed, a separate application for leave to cease acting is unnecessary.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered by Mumbi Ngugi, JA, on 28th November 2025. The firm of Wokabi Mathenge & Co. Advocates, which had filed an appeal on behalf of the appellant, applied by notice dated 11th August 2025 for leave to cease acting, invoking Order 9 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, Rule 23(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022, and sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act. The application, supported by an affidavit of Daniel Wokabi Mathenge, stated that the appellant had withdrawn instructions and was unopposed. The court observed that a Notice of Change of Advocates dated 9th September 2024, together with a consent between the outgoing and incoming firms (Maina Ngaruiya & Co. Advocates), had already been filed, demonstrating the clear intent of the appellant and his erstwhile counsel to part company. The court found the application superfluous in these circumstances but nonetheless allowed it, with no order as to costs. The ruling contains no citation of case law and no separate opinions; it is the decision of a single judge of the Court of Appeal. No decision of a lower court was under review.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave to cease acting is required where a consent and Notice of Change of Advocates already record the change

Holding

The application was allowed despite being superfluous, since the appellant and his erstwhile counsel had clearly parted company by consent.

Reasoning

The court noted that a Notice of Change of Advocates dated 9th September 2024 had already been filed, accompanied by a consent between the two firms confirming the change of representation. Given this clear intent by the appellant and his former advocates to part company, the application for leave to cease acting added nothing, but the court nonetheless allowed it, with no order as to costs.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a Notice of Change of Advocates has been filed with the consent of the outgoing and incoming firms, a separate application for leave to cease acting under Order 9 rule 9 is superfluous.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the firm of Wokabi Mathenge & Co. Advocates to cease acting for the appellant
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 9 rule 9
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2022Rule 23(2)
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsections 3A and 3B
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 9 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, Rule 23(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022, and sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kimani v Kungu (Civil Appeal (Application) E140 of 2022) [2025] KECA 2018 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2018/eng@2025-11-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.