Gachoni Enterprises Limited v Nyaga & 5 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 561 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 6408 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out claims against a lawyer and his partner in a land sale dispute, confirming misconduct complaints belong before the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claim against the 1st Defendant (advocate for the 3rd Defendant) discloses a cause of action
The claim against the 1st Defendant was struck out because the principal (3rd Defendant) was sued and any professional misconduct complaint lies before the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal
The court held that the 1st Defendant acted only as advocate for the 3rd Defendant in the sale transaction, which was not contested. Having sued the principal, the Plaintiff's remedies lie against that principal, not the agent. Further, allegations of breach of professional duties fall within section 60 of the Advocates Act and belong before the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal rather than a civil suit.
Whether the 2nd Defendant, a limited liability partner, is personally liable
The court rejected the limited-liability argument for lack of evidence of the partners' respective liabilities, but nonetheless struck out the 2nd Defendant's name as a consequence of the finding that the misconduct claim belongs to the Disciplinary Tribunal and the principal had been sued
The court held that the argument that a partner in an LLP is not personally liable was not established because the 2nd Defendant adduced no evidence or documents showing the extent of the partners' liabilities. However, since the substantive complaints against the firm were found to belong before the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal and the principal had already been sued, the 2nd Defendant's name was also struck out.
Whether the striking-out power should be exercised
The power to strike out is exercised sparingly; a suit with a semblance of a cause of action should proceed to full hearing
Relying on DT Dobie & Company (Kenya) Ltd vs Muchina, the court reaffirmed that pleadings are only struck out where the suit is plainly hopeless and incurable by amendment. However, on the specific findings that the agents' liability was subsumed in that of the principal and that misconduct complaints belong to the Tribunal, striking out the 1st and 2nd Defendants was warranted.
Legal principles established
#- The power to strike out pleadings is exercised sparingly and cautiously; no suit ought to be summarily dismissed unless it is hopeless and incurable by amendment
- Complaints of professional misconduct against advocates are properly addressed to the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal under section 60 of the Advocates Act, not through a civil suit against the advocate
Court orders
#- 1.The motion dated 18th June 2025 is allowed and the name of the 2nd Defendant is struck out from the proceedings
- 2.Each party to meet their costs of the application and the struck-out suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over the land transaction dispute (statutory provision not expressly cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gachoni Enterprises Limited v Nyaga & 5 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 561 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 6408 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6408/eng@2025-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.