Mansukhalal Jesang Maru v Frank Wafula [2022] KEELC 929 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed you can have more than one law firm represent you at the same time, dismissing a bid to remove the second firm.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a litigant may instruct more than one advocate
A party may be represented by as many advocates as he chooses; multiple advocates may be from the same or different firms and Section 59 of the Advocates Act contemplates costs to more than one advocate subject to a judge's certificate
The court anchored the right to counsel in Articles 48, 50(1) and 159(2)(a) of the Constitution and in Section 59 of the Advocates Act. It found the Applicant had not brought himself within Article 24(1) to justify limiting the Plaintiff's right, and that the fear of double taxation was a matter for the taxing master, not a ground to bar representation.
Whether the second firm came on record irregularly for lack of leave or consent
The firm did not come on record irregularly; Order 9 Rule 5 did not apply as there was no change of advocates, and Rule 6(1) of the Advocates (Practice) Rules permits representation by another advocate with consent, which may be express or implied and need not be in writing
The court held the rule was meant to prevent advocates gate-crashing without instructions. Here the Plaintiff swore he instructed both firms, neither firm objected, and counsel for the initial firm welcomed the subsequent firm in open court. Consent was thus manifest, and Article 159(2)(d) required the court not to treat the absence of a filed written consent as a fatal technicality.
Whether the 3/2/2016 orders should be brought into effect (automatic dismissal)
The orders of 3/2/2016 were complied with because the suit was fixed for hearing within 23 days of the order, within the 30-day window, so there was nothing to enforce
The court reconstructed the record showing the suit was listed for hearing on 09/06/2016 on 26/02/2016, within the 30 days prescribed. The default clause therefore never triggered. The court also viewed the prayer as a disguised attempt to review the orders of 3/2/2016 indirectly.
Legal principles established
#- A party has a constitutional right to be represented by as many advocates as he chooses; absent lawful limitation under Article 24(1), that right cannot be curtailed at the instance of the adverse party
- Where a subsequent advocate comes on record to act alongside the initial advocate, and the initial advocate neither protests nor objects, consent under Rule 6(1) of the Advocates (Practice) Rules is implied and need not be in writing or filed
- Order 9 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies to change of advocates, not to the appointment of an additional advocate to act alongside the existing one
Court orders
#- 1.The Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 30/9/2021 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent/Plaintiff
- 2.The suit to be mentioned on 23/3/2022 in open court to fix a date for further hearing
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 22 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 9 Rule 5, Order 17 Rules 2(3) and (4) and Order 51 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules (2010); Articles 50(4) and 159(2) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Nchoe v Naigisa (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7613 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7613 (KLR)6 Nov 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mansukhalal Jesang Maru v Frank Wafula [2022] KEELC 929 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/929/eng@2022-03-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.