Gatembo ((Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Muguna (Deceased)) v M’Rwito & 10 others (Environment & Land Case 70 of 2012) [2022] KEELC 164 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a Senior Counsel's appeal application because his new law firm never properly took over the case on record.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Capacity of the law firm to file the application
The firm of Kamau Kuria & Co. Advocates lacked capacity as A.G Riungu & Co. Advocates were properly on record and no Order 9 Rule 9 application was made
The court noted the written submissions in prior post-judgment applications were filed by A.G Riungu & Co. Advocates, who also paid for the proceedings. No application to come on record or change of advocates was filed by M/s Kamau Kuria. The firm based in Meru had not been denied proceedings, so the applicant's firm lacked standing to file the application.
Whether delay was occasioned by the Deputy Registrar
No; proceedings and exhibits were ready and certified since August 2021, and the applicant failed to collect them
The court traced the record showing proceedings were ready by 24.8.2021 and certified on 25.8.2021. Other defendants collected theirs promptly. The certificate of delay issued on 31.8.2021 accorded with the record save for minor omissions. The 5th defendant could not explain the inaction between August 2021 and March 2022, so the Deputy Registrar could not be asked to certify non-existent reasons for delay.
Extension of time under Order 49 Rule 7(2)
Refused; no merit in the application
Although prayer 3 sought extension of time to file the memorandum of appeal, and delay was attributed to mistakes of counsel and registry email failures, the court found the true cause was the applicant's failure to collect ready proceedings. A notice challenging the competency of Kamau Kuria's firm was also pending, further undermining the application.
Legal principles established
#- An application filed by a law firm without capacity under Order 9 Rule 9 is a nullity and may be struck out
- A litigant cannot blame the court registry for delay in collecting proceedings that were ready for collection
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 11.3.2022 is struck out for being filed by a law firm lacking capacity and for lacking merits
- 2.The 5th defendant is at liberty to collect a certificate of delay through the firm of A.G Riungu Advocates as at the date the proceedings were certified by the Deputy Registrar
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 49 Rule 7(2) Civil Procedure Rules (appeal from decision of Deputy Registrar to the judge)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gatembo ((Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Muguna (Deceased)) v M’Rwito & 10 others (Environment & Land Case 70 of 2012) [2022] KEELC 164 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Application dated 11.3.2022 (within suit concerning Land Registration Ntima/Igoki/2209). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/164/eng@2022-05-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.