Republic v Assistant County Commissioner & 2 others; Lesidai & 3 others (Interested Parties); Kiseet & 2 others (Exparte Applicants) (Judicial Review E001 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 4179 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court

21 May 2024

EWEmmanuel M. Washe

1,497 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed litigants can drop their lawyers or quit a case by simply filing a notice—no court permission needed.

What this practically means

Executive summary

This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kilgoris (Emmanuel M. Washe, J) concerned a judicial review application dated 23.11.2023 filed by three Ex-parte Applicants after leave was granted on 17.11.2023. Before determination, the 2nd and 3rd Ex-parte Applicants filed a Notice to Act in Person and a Notice of Withdrawal, both dated 12.03.2024, seeking to discontinue their participation. Counsel for the applicants objected that in judicial review proceedings a party requires leave of the court to act in person, while the 1st and 3rd Interested Parties maintained that a litigant cannot be forced to retain counsel. The court framed a single issue: whether the two documents could be endorsed and recorded as part of the proceedings. Applying Order 9 Rules 1, 8 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, the court held that a party who has instructed an advocate may terminate that representation by filing a Notice to Act in Person, and that leave is required only after judgment or decree. Counsel opposing the endorsement cited no authority to the contrary. The court endorsed both documents as lawful, held that the withdrawal terminates the 2nd and 3rd Applicants' causes of action but leaves the 1st Ex-parte Applicant's cause intact, and granted the 1st Ex-parte Applicant 14 days to amend the Notice of Motion by deleting the two withdrawing parties and 14 days to file a fresh Supporting Affidavit. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

Whether the 2nd and 3rd Ex-parte Applicants could file a Notice to Act in Person without leave of the court in judicial review proceedings

Holding

The Notice to Act in Person is lawful and proper; no leave is required

Reasoning

Order 9 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 allows a party to act in person and its only mandatory requirement is filing a Notice to Act in Person. Leave under Order 9 Rule 9 applies only after judgment or decree. Counsel for the applicants cited no statutory provision or authority requiring leave in judicial review matters, and the court was unaware of any.

p. 3

Whether the Notice of Withdrawal by the 2nd and 3rd Ex-parte Applicants could be endorsed and what its effect is

Holding

The Notice of Withdrawal was filed correctly and is lawful; it terminates the withdrawing applicants' causes of action but the 1st Ex-parte Applicant's cause survives

Reasoning

The court held the withdrawal lawful and endorsed it. Although the 2nd Ex-parte Applicant swore the pleadings on delegated powers of the others, each applicant had an individual cause of action; withdrawal terminates only the withdrawing parties' claims, leaving the 1st Ex-parte Applicant free to proceed with the judicial review.

p. 3

Legal principles established

A party who has instructed an advocate may terminate that representation and act in person by simply filing a Notice to Act in Person under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, provided no judgment or decree has been pronounced
There is no requirement that a litigant in judicial review proceedings obtain leave of the court before filing a Notice to Act in Person
A Notice of Withdrawal by some co-applicants terminates their causes of action but does not extinguish the surviving cause of action of the remaining applicant

Court orders

1.The Notice to Act In Person dated 12.03.2024 filed by the 2nd and 3rd Ex-parte Applicants is properly filed and duly endorsed by this Court
2.The Notice of Withdrawal dated 12.03.2024 filed by the 2nd and 3rd Ex-parte Applicants is similarly lawful and duly endorsed by this Court
3.The 1st Ex-parte Applicant is granted leave of 14 days from the date of the Ruling to amend the Notice of Motion Application dated 23.11.2023 by deleting the names of the 2nd and 3rd Ex-parte Applicants as parties
4.The 1st Ex-parte Applicant is granted leave of 14 days to prepare, file and serve a fresh Supporting Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion Application dated 23.11.2023 and/or any other relevant document

Authorities

Legislation

Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 9 Rule 1
Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 9 Rule 8
Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 9 Rule 9

Jurisdiction invoked: Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court/ELC under Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (leave granted 17.11.2023)

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Assistant County Commissioner & 2 others; Lesidai & 3 others (Interested Parties); Kiseet & 2 others (Exparte Applicants) (Judicial Review E001 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 4179 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review Application dated 23.11.2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4179/eng@2024-05-21

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