AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment (notice of motion dated 6/10/2025; the judgment elsewhere refers to 'the application dated 6/10/2023')· [2025] KEELC 7594 (KLR)
Kirema & another v Stanley & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 9 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 7594 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#A Kenyan court let a law firm stop representing its clients because they weren't opposed and had already hired new lawyers.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This is a short first-instance ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Meru by B M Eboso J, delivered on 4 November 2025. The firm of Bundi Muthamia & Company Advocates moved the court by notice of motion dated 6 October 2025 seeking leave to cease acting for the respondents (the Defendants) in the substantive suit. The application was not opposed by the respondents. The court further observed that, in addition to the non-opposition, the two respondents appeared to have already given instructions to new advocates to come on record, indicating that the withdrawal would not leave the respondents unrepresented or prejudice them. On those grounds the court allowed the application in terms of prayer 1, granting the firm leave to come off record. On costs, the court ordered that costs as between the substantive parties to the suit shall be in the cause, meaning the question of costs was left to be determined at the conclusion of the main suit rather than awarded immediately. No authorities or statutes were cited, and no separate opinions were expressed; the bench was a single judge. The ruling disposes only of the representation issue and does not touch the merits of the underlying claim between the plaintiff and the defendants.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether leave should issue for the advocate firm to cease acting for the respondents
Holding
Leave was granted in terms of prayer 1 of the motion
Reasoning
The application was unopposed by the respondents, and the respondents had already given new advocates instructions to come on record, so no prejudice arose from permitting the firm to withdraw.
p. 1
Legal principles established
#- An advocate may be granted leave to cease acting where the application is unopposed and the party has instructed new advocates to come on record
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 6/10/2023 (per the judgment; the motion itself is dated 6/10/2025) is allowed in terms of prayer 1, granting the firm of Bundi Muthamia & Company Advocates leave to cease acting for the respondents
- 2.Costs as between the substantive parties to the suit shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent powers of the court over representation of parties before it (no specific provision cited)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kirema & another v Stanley & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 9 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 7594 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (notice of motion dated 6/10/2025; the judgment elsewhere refers to 'the application dated 6/10/2023'). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7594/eng@2025-11-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.