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 the judgment

Rotich & 7 others v Yator & 14 others (Environment and Land Petition 12 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 5432 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (inferred from the nature of the Petition; not expressly named in the excerpt)
22 July 2025
EOE. O. Obaga
962 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed you can still change lawyers after judgment ends a case, as long as the outgoing lawyer doesn't object.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling determines a Notice of Motion dated 10th May 2024 in which the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents sought leave for the firm of Mark Mwendwa & Co. Advocates to come on record for them post-judgment. The Petition had been concluded by a mediation agreement brokered by the County Commissioner Uasin Gishu and adopted as an order of the court on 20th April 2022. The Applicants had been represented by Akenga Kimutai & Associates, who have since sued them in an application dated 25th March 2024 seeking stay of execution and costs, prompting the Applicants to seek new counsel. The 2nd Respondent opposed, contending that neither Akenga Kimutai & Associates nor Mark Mwendwa & Co. Advocates was ever appointed by the 5th Applicant, whose advocates remain Joseph C. K. Cheptarus & Co. Advocates, and disputing the validity of the Applicants as officials of the 5th Applicant. The Petitioners opposed on grounds of delay and the concluded status of the matter. The court framed a single issue: whether Mark Mwendwa & Co. Advocates should be allowed on record. Applying Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules and S. K. Tarwadi v Veronica Muchlemann, the court held that the outgoing firm did not complain about its removal, delay did not arise since pending applications touched on the Applicants, and allowed the application as prayed.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the firm of Mark Mwendwa & Co. Advocates should be allowed to come on record for the Applicants after judgment

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave is required and should be granted for an incoming advocate to come on record post-judgment

Holding

Yes; Order 9 Rule 9 CPR applies and leave was granted because the outgoing firm raised no complaint and pending applications required the Applicants to be represented

Reasoning

The court found there was a judgment entered on 20th April 2022 adopting the County Commissioner's mediation report, so Order 9 Rule 9 CPR governs the change. The provision protects advocates from mischievous clients who sack them after judgment, but here the outgoing firm did not oppose its removal. Delay was irrelevant because pending applications touched on the Applicants, who are entitled to be heard through counsel of their choice. The application was allowed as prayed.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the outgoing advocate does not oppose the change of advocate post-judgment, and there are pending applications in which the party is entitled to be heard, leave to come on record should be granted; delay does not bar the change in such circumstances

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the firm of Mark Mwendwa & Co. Advocates to come on record for the Applicants
  2. 2.Application dated 10th May 2024 allowed as prayed

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

EO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction to regulate change of advocates post-judgment under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

I therefore allow the application dated 10th May, 2024 as prayed. It is so ordered.
p. 4Final orders - leave granted to incoming advocate
The issue of delay does not arise as there are pending applications which touch on the Applicants who are entitled to be heard on the same.
p. 4Delay and the right to be heard post-judgment
The firm which is being sought to be replaced is not complaining about their removal otherwise they will have opposed the Applicants’ application.
p. 4Outgoing advocate's non-opposition as a factor in granting leave

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Court and case number not expressly stated in the judgment text

minor

Typographical error in the date of the Chamber Summons ('204' instead of '2024')

minor

The mediation agreement was recorded as adopted on 20th April, 2022 and is referred to both as a 'judgment' and as bringing the Petition to closure

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rotich & 7 others v Yator & 14 others (Environment and Land Petition 12 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 5432 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5432/eng@2025-07-22

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