Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the excerpt (elided at paragraph 1)· [2025] KEELC 7270 (KLR)

Kasmani (Suing as Lawful Attorney & Agent of Asgarali Abdulshakur Kasmani) v Kasmani & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E285 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7270 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
27 October 2025
CMC. G. Mbogo
3,165 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court dismissed a bid to disqualify a law firm, ruling that a past unrelated transaction alone doesn't prove a conflict of interest.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a notice of motion dated 16th July 2025 by which the plaintiff/applicant sought to bar the firm of M/s Wandabwa Advocates from representing the 1st defendant in a suit concerning family property transactions, including a contested deed of settlement dated 29th July 2024 founded on the doctrine of resulting trust. The applicant alleged that Mr Wandabwa had acted for him and his family in conveyancing matters for over fifteen years, creating an apparent conflict of interest, and that the advocate was a likely witness having authored the deed of settlement. Mr Wandabwa, the 1st defendant and advocate Flora Mweseli all opposed the application in replying affidavits, denying any retainer from the applicant's family, denying involvement in the disputed transactions, and explaining that the deed of settlement was prepared by Flora Mweseli and witnessed by an independent advocate. The court framed a sole issue: whether the firm should be barred from acting for the 1st defendant. Relying on Article 50(2)(9) of the Constitution, Rule 8 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules, and the principles in Murgor & Murgor Advocates v Kenya Pipeline Co. Ltd and Dorothy Seyanoi Moschioni v Andrew Stuart, the court held that conflict of interest must be proved by evidence, that acting for a litigant in a separate non-contentious transaction does not per se create a conflict, and that only advocates holding confidential information need be disqualified. The applicant failed to establish a long-standing advocate-client relationship or real mischief and prejudice, and Flora Mweseli can testify at the hearing. The motion was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether Wandabwa Advocates should be disqualified from acting for the 1st defendant for conflict of interest

Holding

Application dismissed; no apparent conflict of interest was demonstrated

Reasoning

Every litigant has a constitutional right to counsel of choice under Article 50(2)(9), which may be limited only where confidentiality is endangered or the advocate would be a witness. Applying the Murgor principles and Gikonyo J's test of real mischief and prejudice, the court found the firm had acted for the parties only in separate transactions, the deed of settlement was drawn by Flora Mweseli who can testify, and no long-standing advocate-client relationship or real prejudice was proved.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Disqualification of an advocate requires proof of a real conflict of interest or real mischief and prejudice; the mere fact that an advocate acted for a litigant in a separate, non-contentious transaction does not per se create a conflict

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of motion dated 16th July 2025 dismissed
  2. 2.Costs shall be in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Rule 9 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules 1966; Section 121(4) of the Evidence Act; Article 50(2)(9) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kasmani (Suing as Lawful Attorney & Agent of Asgarali Abdulshakur Kasmani) v Kasmani & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E285 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7270 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt (elided at paragraph 1). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7270/eng@2025-10-27

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