Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2020] KEELC 269 (KLR)

Samwel Kiptoo Rop & another v Beatrice Nakhumicha Khaoya & 3 others [2020] KEELC 269 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 October 2020
873 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed you can hire two law firms for the same case, and objections to a lawyer's authority must come early, not late.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kitale delivered by Mwangi Njoroge, J on 6th October 2020, in the course of a part-heard land suit. Prof. Sifuna, for the 1st defendant and supported by Mr. Wanyonyi for the 2nd defendant, objected to Mr. Bungei of the firm of Bungei & Murgor & Co. Advocates continuing to represent the plaintiffs, Samuel Kiptoo Rop and Moses Kibiwott Limo, on the ground that he had no authority, the objection resting on Order 9 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules and on the Notice of Appointment dated 23/7/2018 which stated that his firm would act for the plaintiffs 'alongside' the firm of Arap Mitei & Co. Advocates. Mr. Bungei countered that he had only ever appeared 'acting alongside' or 'holding brief for' Mr. Mitei, who remained lead counsel, and that no complaint had been received from that firm. The court held that there is no irregularity in a party appointing two or more firms of Advocates; that a Notice of Appointment merely adds an Advocate to the matter, unlike a Notice of Change which replaces the Advocate on record; and that such dual representation is not barred by the rules. The court further observed that the objection came late, when only one of two witnesses remained to testify, and that Prof. Sifuna could not show that the firm of Arap Mitei & Co. had been served with the document bundle that sparked the dispute. The objection was disallowed and the hearing directed to proceed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an Advocate appointed by Notice of Appointment alongside an existing firm on record is properly before the court

Holding

The court held that the filing of a Notice of Appointment is not barred by the rules even where another Advocate is already on record, and the incoming firm would only 'act alongside' the original firm

Reasoning

The court distinguished a Notice of Change, which implies the incoming Advocate replaces the original Advocate, from a Notice of Appointment, which merely adds an Advocate to the matter. There is no rule prohibiting dual representation. The record showed both firms appearing, sometimes jointly and sometimes alone, without objection from the firm of Arap Mitei & Co. Advocates, and how the plaintiff deals with the two firms is a matter for the plaintiff, not the court.

p. 2
02

Whether an objection to an Advocate's authority should be entertained late in the hearing

Holding

The objection, raised when the greater part of the suit had been heard and only one of two witnesses remained to testify, was disallowed

Reasoning

The court noted the surprising timing of the objection, observing that the proceedings had progressed a great deal. It also found that Prof. Sifuna, who argued illegality should be nipped in the bud, was unable to show that the properly-on-record firm of Arap Mitei & Co. had even been served with the bundle (1st DMFI-7) that sparked the representation dispute. Each objection would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A Notice of Appointment merely appoints an Advocate to a matter whether or not another Advocate is already on record, and such an incoming firm may only 'act alongside' the original firm; this is not barred by the rules
  • A party may engage two or more firms of Advocates to act for him in the same suit

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The objection to Mr. Bungei's representation of the plaintiffs is disallowed
  2. 2.Hearing to proceed
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in the judgment (Environment and Land Court exercising original jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samwel Kiptoo Rop & another v Beatrice Nakhumicha Khaoya & 3 others [2020] KEELC 269 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/269/eng@2020-10-06

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