Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedCivil Appeal E001 of 2022· [2023] KEELC 18023 (KLR)

Republic v Homabay District Land Registrar & 2 others; Mbai & another (Exparte)

Environment and Land Court
7 June 2023
GOGMA Ongondo
305 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay allowed a lawyer to stop representing clients after their land dispute was settled out of court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This short ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay (GMA Ongondo, J) deals with a Notice of Motion dated March 22, 2023 in which the firm of W.O Ochuka and Company Advocates sought leave to cease acting for the ex-parte applicants (Rawlings Onyango Mbai and Samwel Odhiambo Dudu) in the underlying judicial review proceedings against the Homabay District Land Registrar, the Homabay District Land Surveyor and the Attorney General, together with costs. When the application came up, Ms. Ochieng, instructed by W.O Ochuka and Company Advocates, informed the court that the matter had been settled and asked that the motion be allowed with costs. Ms. Amondi, instructed by Nancy Nyarige and Company Advocates for the interested party, raised no objection. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents were not involved in the application. The court found the application merited, allowed it with costs to the ex-parte applicants' counsel, and marked the matter as settled. The ruling is purely procedural: it determines no substantive rights, cites no authorities or statutes, and disposes of the representation issue only. Advocates may cite it, if at all, only as an instance of the routine grant of leave for counsel to come on record off where a suit has been settled and there is no objection.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave should issue for counsel to cease acting for the ex-parte applicants

Holding

The court found the application merited, noting the matter had been settled and there was no objection from the interested party.

Reasoning

Counsel for the ex-parte applicants informed the court that the suit had been settled and sought leave to cease acting, with costs. Counsel for the interested party raised no objection. The respondents were not involved in the application. On those uncontroverted facts the court found the application merited and allowed it with costs, marking the matter as settled.

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.The firm of M/s W.O Ochuka and Company Advocates granted leave to cease acting for the ex-parte applicants
    2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the ex-parte applicant's counsel, W.O Ochuka and Company Advocates
    3. 3.The matter marked as settled
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Not stated in the ruling; the court proceeds under its inherent procedural powers to permit withdrawal of counsel in a judicial review suit

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Republic v Homabay District Land Registrar & 2 others; Mbai & another (Exparte)", Case Analysis (2023). Civil Appeal E001 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/18023/eng@2023-06-07

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