Equip Agencies Limited & another v Gitau, Ngigi, Njoroge (Sued as office bearers of Gigil Total Investors Self Help Group & 4 others (Land Case 89 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 8508 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a law firm's entire application because it replaced the previous lawyer after judgment without following the required procedure.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Change of advocates after judgment
The incoming firm failed to obtain a court order or file a consent from the previous counsel as required by Order 9 Rule 9, so its purported coming on record was irregular
Judgment had been entered for the 1st and 2nd Defendants and the suit settled per a Deed of Settlement, triggering Order 9 Rule 9. The incoming counsel instead filed a Certificate of Urgency purporting to come on record without leave or consent. The rule, though not impeding the right to counsel of choice, is mandatory and safeguards against undercutting; non-compliance cannot be excused as a technicality.
Consequence of non-compliance with Order 9 Rule 9
The firm is not properly on record and all pleadings filed by it, including the Notice of Motion dated 13th August 2025, are struck out with costs
Having come on record irregularly, the firm had no legal standing to move the court. Although the Applicant has a constitutional right to representation of choice, where clear statutory provisions regulate the procedure, they must be adhered to. The court therefore struck out the entire application rather than excusing the defect.
Legal principles established
#- A change of advocates after judgment requires an order of the court or a filed consent; the Order 9 Rule 9 procedure is mandatory, not a mere technicality
- An advocate who comes on record without complying with Order 9 Rule 9 lacks legal standing to move the court for the party
- Taxation of a Bill of Costs is a post-judgment/decree proceeding, so challenging it by Reference is a step taken after judgment
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 13th August 2025 and all pleadings filed by M/s Omondi Odegi & Company Advocates are struck out with costs
- 2.Costs of the application granted to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, Orders 9, 22 and 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 17 of the High Court (Organization and Administration) General Rules, 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Equip Agencies Limited & another v Gitau, Ngigi, Njoroge (Sued as office bearers of Gigil Total Investors Self Help Group & 4 others (Land Case 89 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 8508 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8508/eng@2025-12-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.