Lagat v Sichangi & 2 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 71 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Eldoret Environment and Land Court barred an advocate from continuing to act in a land dispute because he was both a potential witness and conflicted.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an advocate who attested and prepared a disputed document and is a potential witness should be barred from acting
Yes. The advocate is the maker and recipient of the Specific Power of Attorney, will likely be a witness, and holds conflicting instructions, so prejudice is established.
The court found the Specific Power of Attorney was drawn by the firm of M/s Arap Mitei & Company Advocates and that Mr. Christopher Mitei attested both documents. Since the Respondent relies on the agreement for sale, land transfer form and power of attorney, the advocate would inevitably be called to testify and be cross-examined. He also acted for the 1st Applicant and now acts for the Respondent, creating a conflict of interest and prejudice, contrary to Paragraph 8 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules.
Whether mere attestation of a document, without preparation, suffices to disqualify an advocate
Mere attestation alone would not suffice; the Land Transfer Form was only witnessed, but the Power of Attorney was both drawn by the firm and made in favour of the advocate.
The court distinguished the two documents: the Land Transfer Form was not prepared by the advocate or his firm, only witnessed, so the advocate 'might not have much to testify' on it. The Specific Power of Attorney, however, was prepared by the firm and named the advocate as the recipient/attorney, making his evidence on its execution and the circumstances of the delegated powers inevitable at trial.
Legal principles established
#- An advocate who prepared a disputed transactional document and holds conflicting instructions is conflicted and will be barred from acting where prejudice would result.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 22.07.2025 is merited
- 2.The firm of M/s Arap Mitei & Company, Advocates and/or Mr. Christopher Mitei, Advocate be and is hereby barred from acting for the Respondent, Julious Kiprop Lagat, in Eldoret Environment & Land Court Originating Summons No. E006 of 2025 henceforth
- 3.The Respondent is condemned to pay costs of this application to the Applicants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the Originating Summons; interlocutory application under the Advocates (Practice) Rules, Legal Notice No. 19 of 1967, Paragraph 8
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lagat v Sichangi & 2 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 71 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC OS No. E006 of 2025 (Notice of Motion dated 22.07.2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/71/eng@2026-01-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.