Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEldoret Chief Magistrates' ELC No. 76 of 2018 (appeal; Memorandum of Appeal dated 18th February 2019)· [2020] KEELC 3283 (KLR)

Ezekiel Kiprono Lamai v Lawrence Kibor Nganai [2020] KEELC 3283 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya, Eldoret
11 March 2020
1,126 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court confirmed a new advocate can file an appeal without a notice of change because an appeal is a separate case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 27th March 2019 raised by Lawrence Kibor Nganai, the Respondent, against an appeal and a Motion dated 20th February 2019 seeking stay of execution of a judgment and order issued in Eldoret Chief Magistrates' ELC No. 76 of 2018 on 22nd January 2019. The Respondent objected that M/s Kalya & Company Advocates, who filed the appeal, did not act for the Appellant in the lower court (where M/s Chepkitway & Company Advocates appeared), never filed or served a notice of change of advocates, and were therefore not properly on record under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules; and that the appeal was defectively pleaded and should be struck out. The Appellant, relying on Mary Nchekei Paul, Peter Chere Kiiru, Stanley Mugambi and Tobias M. Wafubwa, submitted that an appeal is a distinct suit from the original suit and that Order 9 Rule 9 had not been infringed. The court held that an appeal is a separate and distinct suit from the original suit, that Order 9 Rule 9 applies to representation in an ongoing or concluded suit, and that M/s Kalya & Company Advocates were properly on record; the notice of change issue therefore did not arise. Ground 4 of the objection was taken as abandoned. The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs to the Appellant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an incoming advocate on appeal must comply with Order 9 Rule 9 (notice of change of advocates)

Holding

No. An appeal is a distinct suit from the primary suit; the advocate who did not act in the lower court may properly come on record on appeal without a notice of change of advocates.

Reasoning

The court considered superior court decisions cited by both sides and adopted the position that an appeal is a separate and distinct suit from the original suit. Order 9 Rule 9 governs replacement of advocates in an ongoing or concluded suit. Since the appeal was commenced afresh through the newly instructed firm, no advocate was being replaced and the Rule was not infringed. The finding does not preclude the appellant from pursuing the appeal through properly instructed counsel.

p. 2
02

Whether the appeal was defective and should be struck out

Holding

The objection failed; once the advocates were properly on record, the defect ground collapsed and the Notice of Change issue did not arise.

Reasoning

Having found the firm properly instructed and on record, and that the Memorandum of Appeal and Motion were drawn and filed through its chambers, the court held the notice-of-change question did not arise. Ground 4 of the preliminary objection was not pursued in submissions and was taken as abandoned. The objection as a whole therefore failed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal is a separate and distinct suit from the original suit that is the subject matter of the appeal.
  • Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies to representation in an ongoing or concluded suit, not to the commencement of an appeal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.M/s Kalya & Company Advocates are properly on record for the Appellant in the appeal; the Notice of Change of Advocate issue does not arise.
  2. 2.Ground 4 of the preliminary objection taken to have been abandoned.
  3. 3.The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs to the Appellant.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actnot specified
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 9 Rule 9
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 4

Cases cited (9)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Company Ltd Vs West End Distributors Ltd
    (1969) E.A. 696
  • Tailors & Textiles Workers Union Vs Moi University & Rivatex E. A. Ltd
    Industrial Cause No. 1981 of 2011 as consolidated with Industrial Cause No. 1996 of 2011
  • Stephen Mwangi Kimote Vs Murata Sacco Society
    [2018] eKLR
  • David Kihiti Mbugua Vs David Kihiti Mbugua
    [2014] eKLR
  • Mary Nchekei Paul Vs Francis Mundia Ruga
    [2019] eKLR
  • Peter Chere Kiiru Vs Charles Mulanda Manyelo
    [2019] eKLR
  • Stanley Mugambi Vs Anthony Mugambi
    [2005] eKLR
  • Stanley Mugambi & Another Vs John Kiraithe
    [2005] eKLR
  • Tobias M. Wafubwa Vs Ben Butali
    [2017] eKLR
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court, Eldoret (Environment and Land)
ELC No. 76 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the Chief Magistrates' Court (Environment and Land jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ezekiel Kiprono Lamai v Lawrence Kibor Nganai [2020] KEELC 3283 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Eldoret Chief Magistrates' ELC No. 76 of 2018 (appeal; Memorandum of Appeal dated 18th February 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3283/eng@2020-03-11

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