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 AppealAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2026] KECA 671 (KLR)

Joseph Theuri Gikonyo v The Attorney General & 1 other

Court of Appeal of Kenya
25 March 2026
SKS. Ole Kantai
360 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 allowed a law firm to stop representing a client who refused to pay fees or respond to correspondence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nyeri delivered by S. Ole Kantai, JA, on 25th March 2026, determining a notice of motion by the law firm Waweru Macharia & Co. Advocates seeking leave under rule 23(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules to cease acting for the 2nd respondent, Nicodemus Wakaba Gitonga, in an appeal. The firm deponed, through Duncan Waweru Macharia, that the client had failed, refused or neglected to pay advocates' fees, making continued representation impossible. A letter dated 14th November 2023 evidencing demands for payment and a notice of intention to withdraw was attached. The application was served on the 2nd respondent by WhatsApp on 12th January 2024, on the Attorney General and on M/s Kebuka Wachira & Co. Advocates on 16th January 2024, and a hearing notice was served on 25th February 2026. No replying affidavit was filed and the client did not respond. The court held that a law firm cannot be compelled to continue representing a non-responsive client who neither responds to correspondence nor pays fees, allowed the motion with costs to the applicant's firm, and directed that the order be served personally on the 2nd respondent and also on the appellant and the 1st respondent. No authorities were cited and no decision below was disturbed; the ruling is procedural and does not dispose of the underlying appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave should issue for an advocate to come off record for a client who has failed to pay fees

Holding

Leave granted; the firm had demonstrated non-payment of fees and non-responsiveness, service of the application was effected, and no replying affidavit was filed.

Reasoning

The application was brought under rule 23(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, supported by an affidavit of Duncan Waweru Macharia and a letter of 14th November 2023 demanding payment. Service was effected by WhatsApp and on the Attorney General and Kebuka Wachira & Co. Advocates. There was no replying affidavit and the client did not attend despite hearing notice, so the court concluded the motion had merit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A law firm cannot be compelled to continue representing a non-responsive client who fails to pay fees; leave to withdraw from representation may be granted where fees are unpaid and the client is unresponsive.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to Waweru Macharia & Co. Advocates to cease acting for the 2nd respondent Nicodemus Wakaba Gitonga
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the applicant's law firm
  3. 3.Order to be served personally on the 2nd respondent and also on the appellant and the 1st respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 23(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joseph Theuri Gikonyo v The Attorney General & 1 other", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/671/eng@2026-03-25

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