Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 3335 (KLR)

Imbani Dispensary v Abdi (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 195 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 3335 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 April 2025
MCMbogo C.G.
1,704 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed clients can change advocates after judgment, provided they get the court's leave and show good reason for the switch.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, through its founding chairman Julius Musyoka Kilonzo, moved the court by notice of motion dated 23rd January 2025 under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking leave for the firms of M/S P.G Kaingu & Co. Advocates and M/S Wanjiru Thungu & Co. Advocates to come on record after judgment in place of M/S Mbuthia Kinyanjui & Co. Advocates. The applicant explained that the court had converted a National Land Commission award into a judgment delivered on 17th October 2021, and that more than three years on, the fruits of the award remained unrealised, with the advocate on record offering no explanation and having lost the client's confidence. The outgoing firm opposed, arguing no members' meeting sanctioned the disengagement, that it had obtained a decree and certificate of costs dated 28th March 2023, that the incoming firms had interfered with execution, and that it was owed fees. The court framed a single issue: whether leave should be granted. It noted that the advocate-client relationship is contractual, that the outgoing firm has a statutory process to recover fees, and that the applicant's choice of representation should not be interfered with absent proof of reason, nor would the outgoing firm suffer prejudice. The application was allowed with each party bearing its own costs. The decision of S.K Tarwadi and Lalji Bhimji Shangani were cited by the respondent but not expressly adopted.

Key legal issues

#
01

Change of legal representation after judgment under Order 9 Rule 9

Holding

Leave was granted where the applicant demonstrated loss of faith in the outgoing advocate's failure to execute the decree for over three years, and no prejudice to the outgoing advocate was shown

Reasoning

Order 9 Rule 9 requires court leave for a change of advocate after judgment, to prevent a party stealing a match on the outgoing advocate. The applicant deposed that the outgoing firm had failed for over three years to execute the judgment converting the National Land Commission award, and had lost faith in it. The court held the advocate-client relationship is contractual, that the outgoing firm could pursue its fees through the prescribed process, and that it would not be entangled in the sour relationship. No prejudice to the outgoing firm was identified.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A change of advocate after judgment requires an order of the court upon application with notice or a consent, and the court will not refuse a client's choice of representation absent proof of reason to interfere

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the firms of M/S P.G Kaingu & Co. Advocates and M/S Wanjiru Thungu & Co. Advocates to come on record for the applicant in place of M/S Mbuthia Kinyanjui & Co. Advocates
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B and 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 9 Rule 9

Cases cited (2)

  • S. K Tarwadi vs Veronica Muehlmann
    [2019] eKLR
  • Lalji Bhimji Shangani Builders & Contractors v City Council of Nairobi
    [2012] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Imbani Dispensary v Abdi (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 195 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 3335 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3335/eng@2025-04-24

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