Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially Allowed· [2025] KEELC 5539 (KLR)

Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited v Biego & 19 others (Environment and Land Case 96 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 5539 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
23 July 2025
GOG M A Ongondo
490 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court allowed a law firm to stop representing two clients who stopped giving instructions, confirming lawyers can withdraw when clients don't pay or communicate.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Chamber Summons dated 21st July 2025 brought under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, the firm of Betty Koech and Company Advocates sought leave to cease acting for the 2nd, 3rd and 5th to 8th defendants, contending that the defendants had failed to give further instructions despite several attempts. The application was served as evidenced by an affidavit of service sworn on 22nd July 2025, but the 5th and 6th respondents did not appear at the inter partes hearing. Counsel sought orders only against the 5th and 6th respondents, as the other respondents intended to give further instructions. G M A Ongondo J allowed the application in part. Relying on the principle from Delphis Bank Limited v Channan Singh Chatthe & 6 others (2005) KECA 297 that the right to an advocate of one's choice is a valued constitutional right, and finding that the 5th and 6th respondents had failed to substantially fulfil their obligations to counsel, the court permitted the firm to cease acting for those two respondents only. The respondents were left at liberty to engage new counsel, re-engage Betty Koech and Company Advocates, or act in person. Given the nature of the application, no orders as to costs were made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether counsel may come off record where a client fails to give instructions

Holding

The application was allowed; counsel is permitted to cease acting for the 5th and 6th respondents who failed to give instructions and failed to fulfil obligations to counsel

Reasoning

The court applied Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. The application was undefended and the 5th and 6th respondents, though served, were absent. The affidavit evidence showed that despite several attempts, no instructions were forthcoming. The court invoked the constitutional value of the right to an advocate of one's choice and held that clients who fail to substantially fulfil obligations to their counsel cannot compel continued representation, so counsel deserved the orders sought.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The right to legal representation by an advocate of one's choice is a valued constitutional right of a litigant

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The firm of Betty Koech and Company Advocates allowed to cease acting for the 5th and 6th defendants/respondents only
  2. 2.The 5th and 6th respondents at liberty to engage another counsel, re-engage Betty Koech and Company Advocates, or act in person
  3. 3.No orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited v Biego & 19 others (Environment and Land Case 96 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 5539 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5539/eng@2025-07-23

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