Joseph Mwangangi Muunda v Stephen Ndoo Muindi & another [2018] KEELC 4324 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed an attempt to overturn a default judgment because the new lawyer never got the court's permission to take over the case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an application to set aside interlocutory judgment filed by counsel who came on record without leave is competent
The application was incompetent and lacked merit
Mwania Mbithi & Company Advocates were on record for the applicant, having obtained leave on 20th March 2013. R.A Onchuru & Company Advocates filed a notice of change of advocates on 24th May 2013 without seeking the court's leave as required by Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Although Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution requires justice to be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities, the court held that ignoring the procedure here would only assist a party intent on delaying the course of justice. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Legal principles established
#- An advocate coming on record after judgment has been passed must seek the court's leave before filing an application; failure to do so renders the application incompetent
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 28th June 2013 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 10 Rules 9 and 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joseph Mwangangi Muunda v Stephen Ndoo Muindi & another [2018] KEELC 4324 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/4324/eng@2018-02-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.