Korio & another v Korinko & 6 others (Environment & Land Petition E005 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 184 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kilgoris court ruled that a law firm cannot be kicked off a case just because an earlier, differently-composed firm once acted for the opposing party.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a conflict of interest exists justifying disqualification of the firm of Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal and Partners Advocates
No conflict of interest was established. The firm that acted for the 1st Petitioner in Kisii ELC No. 21/2013 was a sole proprietorship since dissolved; the current firm was formed in 2021 and never acted for the Applicant.
The court traced the corporate history of the firms: the original sole proprietorship acted in the 2013/2014 matter; a second partnership formed in 2017 was dissolved in December 2020; the current firm was formed in 2021 after Mr. Oguttu Joseph Mboya resigned upon appointment as a judge. Since no advocate/client relationship existed between the current firm and the Applicant, no conflict of interest or breach of confidence could arise.
Whether the current firm is in possession of privileged information or is a potential witness
No. Privileged communications were confined to the original firm and Mr. Oguttu Joseph Mboya and his then associate; the new partners are unlikely to possess confidential material, particularly with Mr. Mboya's resignation.
Winny Ochwal deponed that she was never instructed by the Applicant in Kisii ELC No. 21/2013, was not privy to privileged information, and had no fiduciary relationship with the Applicant. The court agreed, noting the matter was concluded in 2014 before the current partners joined the profession in that firm.
Whether mere apprehension of conflict suffices to disqualify an advocate
No; the application was founded on mere apprehension and lacked merit.
The Applicant's apprehension that the firm would occasion mischief was speculative. The court found no factual foundation for the alleged conflict, no instructions to the current firm, and no demonstrated possession of confidential information, so the disqualification relief could not issue.
Legal principles established
#- A law firm that had no advocate/client relationship with a party cannot be disqualified for conflict of interest merely because a predecessor firm, or a partner since departed, previously acted for that party.
- An advocate/client relationship and attendant privilege do not automatically extend to successor firms of different composition, particularly where the matter was concluded before the new firm was formed.
- A solicitor who has been retained by a client is under an absolute duty not to disclose information, but there is no general rule prohibiting a solicitor who acted for one client from acting for an opposite party in the same matter absent a conflicting duty.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 18.09.2024 seeking to disqualify/recuse the firm of Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal and Partners Advocates from acting for the 1st - 4th Respondents is dismissed
- 2.The 1st Petitioner/Applicant to pay costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the petition; interim application for disqualification of advocates on record
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Korio & another v Korinko & 6 others (Environment & Land Petition E005 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 184 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated on the face of the ruling (referenced as a Petition with an application dated 18.09.2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/184/eng@2025-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.