Kintet & another v Kunguru & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E009 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8233 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Narok court struck out a land dispute appeal and injunction application because the new law firm took over the case after judgment without required court permission.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Preliminary Objection based on non-compliance with Order 9 Rule 9 is merited
Yes - the objection is a pure point of law and succeeds; Ole Yenko & Co Advocates, having come on record after judgment without leave or consent, is not properly on record and lacks locus standi
The court held Order 9 Rule 9 is couched in mandatory terms and applies even where the matter is an appeal, rejecting the Applicants' argument that an appeal is a fresh proceeding. Failure to obtain leave of the court or file a consent between outgoing and incoming advocates means the new advocate is not properly on record. Consequently, the firm has no legal standing to move the court, and all its pleadings are struck out.
Whether the Notice of Motion dated 20th May 2025 (for injunction pending appeal) is merited
The court declined to determine it, striking it out as a consequence of the upheld Preliminary Objection
Since the pleadings filed by the improperly-on-record firm were struck out, the application itself was struck out without any merits determination on the injunction or stay. Costs were put in the cause, and the firm was given the opportunity to regularize its compliance with Order 9 Rule 9.
Legal principles established
#- Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules is mandatory and applies even to appeals; an incoming advocate coming on record after judgment without leave of the court or a consent has no locus standi, and pleadings filed by such advocate may be struck out
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 30th May 2025 is upheld
- 2.The Law Firm of Ole Yenko & Co Advocates is found not properly on record and without locus standi to file the appeal and application
- 3.All pleadings filed by the Law Firm of Ole Yenko & Co Advocates are struck out
- 4.The Law Firm is directed to regularize its position by complying with Order 9 Rule 9 Civil Procedure Rules 2010
- 5.The Notice of Motion Application dated 20th May 2025 is struck out with costs in the cause
- On appeal from
- Narok Chief Magistrate's Court
- CMCC 57 of 2013 (consolidated with CMCC 200 of 2013)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 3A and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Njeru v Kuria & 16 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E005 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3008 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3008 (KLR)13 May 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kintet & another v Kunguru & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E009 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8233 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Narok CMCC 57 of 2013 (Appeal), consolidated with Narok CMCC 200 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8233/eng@2025-11-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.