Isaac Kipkemboi Cheshire & 4 others v Joseph Kimitei Kwambai & 3 others; Rose Cheruiyot Rono & 3 others (Interested parties) [2021] KEELC 3108 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenyan courts allow a litigant to have two law firms on record, but only with the first firm's consent and one firm must lead.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a party may have more than one advocate on record
Yes - a party may be represented by more than one advocate, but the second advocate requires the consent of the first, per Rule 7(1) of the Advocates (Practice) Rules; absent exhibited consent, service of the notice on the first firm is taken as lack of objection
The court adopted its own prior holding in Samuel K Rono v Joel Komen and the Belgo Holdings decision, relying on Rule 7(1) of the Advocates (Practice) Rules and Order 11 Rules 1 and 8. It found that the right to object vests only in the client and the existing counsel; neither objected, and the notice and motion were to be served on Chelang'a Chambers Advocates, so consent was presumed until otherwise indicated.
Practical arrangement where two firms are on record
One firm must be designated leading counsel on record, responsible for drawing, filing, serving and receiving court process and taxing party-and-party costs, with the other as assisting counsel
Endorsing Belgo Holdings, the court reasoned that multiple firms on record create confusion over service and increase the cost and delay of litigation for all parties. It directed the two firms to file notices specifying the leading and assisting firms and which firm handles court processes for the 4th plaintiff.
Whether the notice filed by Betty Koech & Co. Advocates should be struck out on the objection of the 1st defendant's counsel
The objection was rejected; the 1st defendant's counsel had no locus to object, though the irregularity in the firm name on the notice required clarification
The court observed that the notice described one firm (M/S Betty Koech, Njuguna & Co. Advocates) but was signed by another (M/s Betty Koech & Co. Advocates), and that the first firm on record had appeared under three different names. Only the client or existing counsel could object, and neither did, so the 1st defendant's objection failed, though directions for clarification were issued.
Legal principles established
#- Two or more advocates can represent the same party in a suit, subject to Rule 7 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules requiring consent of the advocate already acting
- Only the client herself or the counsel already on record may object to a second counsel coming on record for a party
- A litigant should have one firm on record as leading counsel, with other firms joined as assisting counsel, to avoid confusion and expense in service of process
Court orders
#- 1.Mr Wafula's objection to the 4th plaintiff having a second counsel on record is rejected as unmeritorious
- 2.The 4th plaintiff's counsel of choice to clarify the position by filing and serving the appropriate notices within seven (7) days
- 3.The two firms on record for the 4th plaintiff to file appropriate notices clarifying specifically which one is the leading and assisting advocate, and which firm draws, files, serves and receives court processes on behalf of the 4th plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent directions jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Rules in an ongoing first-instance suit
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Isaac Kipkemboi Cheshire & 4 others v Joseph Kimitei Kwambai & 3 others; Rose Cheruiyot Rono & 3 others (Interested parties) [2021] KEELC 3108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3108/eng@2021-06-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.