Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 8319 (KLR)

Malel v Chepkirong (Land Case E013 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8319 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
24 November 2025
GOG. M. A Ongondo
381 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

#

A Kapsabet court allowed a law firm to withdraw its request to quit a case after the client restored instructions, with no costs ordered.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This short ruling of the High Court at Kapsabet deals with a Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2025 filed by Cherono Jepkosgey & Company Advocates for the defendant, seeking leave to cease acting for the defendant in the suit and costs of the application. The application was premised on the applicant advocate's affidavit and grounds that counsel were no longer receiving instructions from the defendant and could not proceed without instructions. When the application came up for hearing, Ms E Koech, learned counsel for the applicant/defendant, informed the court that upon discussion with her client, who had been duly served, she had received full instructions to proceed acting for her in the suit, and asked that the application be marked as withdrawn and the suit fixed for further hearing. Mr V. Kiprono, counsel for the plaintiff, requested that further hearing be set on a Monday of any month. The court, presided over by Hon. G. M. A Ongondo, Judge, subscribed to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Kim Jong Kyu v Housing Finance Company Limited & 2 others (2015) eKLR on the fiduciary, trust-based advocate-client relationship, and noted that counsel was at liberty to withdraw the application having given reasons, as observed by the Supreme Court in Council of Governors v Senate & another (2014) eKLR. The court marked the application as withdrawn with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an advocate's application to cease acting may properly be withdrawn where instructions have been restored

Holding

The application was allowed to be withdrawn because counsel received full instructions to continue acting for the defendant

Reasoning

Counsel informed the court that upon discussion with the defendant, who had been duly served with the application, she had received full instructions to proceed acting for her in the suit. She therefore sought to withdraw the application and have the suit fixed for further hearing. The court, subscribing to the confidence-based relationship between advocate and client, found counsel at liberty to withdraw the application having given reasons, and marked it withdrawn with no orders as to costs.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • The client places confidence, faith, reliance and trust in the advocate, whose aid, advice, opinion and protection is sought from time to time

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application (Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2025) is marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs
  2. 2.It is so ordered
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the court over applications by advocates to cease acting; no specific constitutional or statutory provision cited

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Malel v Chepkirong (Land Case E013 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8319 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8319/eng@2025-11-24

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