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· [2026] KEELC 372 (KLR)

Mberia v Rimberia & another (Environment and Land Case 306 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 372 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 January 2026
BEB M Eboso
164 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court allowed a lawyer to withdraw an attempt to take over a land case after the client testified he never hired them.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This short Environment and Land Court ruling at Chuka, delivered by B M Eboso, ELC Judge, on 29 January 2026, resolved a contestation over whether the firm of Roba & Associates LLP had been instructed to replace M/s Charles Kariuki & Kiome Associates Advocates as advocates acting for the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff attended court in person and testified on oath that he had no intention of replacing his advocates on record. In light of that testimony, Roba & Associates LLP, through Mr Oginga, orally applied to withdraw the application dated 3/12/2025, by which they had sought leave to replace the plaintiff's current advocates. The oral application to withdraw was not opposed. The court, in the circumstances, marked the application dated 3/12/2025 as withdrawn with no order as to costs. The defendant was absent, and Ms Gikundi appeared for the plaintiff while Mr Oginga appeared for Roba & Associates LLP, with Nelly serving as court assistant. The ruling decides only the fate of the change-of-advocates application; no substantive issues in the suit were determined and no other orders were made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether Roba & Associates LLP had been instructed to replace the plaintiff's advocates on record

Holding

The court found, on the plaintiff's sworn testimony, that there was no intention to replace M/s Charles Kariuki & Kiome Associates Advocates

Reasoning

The plaintiff attended court in person and testified on oath that he had no intention of replacing his advocates on record. Arising from that testimony, Roba & Associates Advocates, through Mr Oginga, orally applied to withdraw their application dated 3/12/2025 seeking leave to replace the plaintiff's current advocates. The oral application to withdraw was not opposed, and the court accordingly marked the application withdrawn with no order as to costs.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.The application dated 3/12/2025 is marked 'withdrawn with no order as to costs'
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Environment and Land Court Act (not expressly cited in the judgment)

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Mberia v Rimberia & another (Environment and Land Case 306 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 372 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/372/eng@2026-01-29

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