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 989 (KLR)

Kathumba & another (Suing as legal representative of the Estate of the Late John Kathumba Makuthi) v Kenya Airports Authority & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E061 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 989 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 February 2026
TMT. MURIGI
199 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

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ordered two rival law firms' clients to appear in person and confirm which advocate actually represents them.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This short ruling by the Environment and Land Court addresses an inter-firm contest over representation. Two law firms, Echessa Bwire & Co Advocates and E.W Kamuyu & Co Advocates, each asserted that it was duly instructed to represent the Petitioners, creating uncertainty as to who was properly on record. The court, per Hon. T. Murigi, Judge, held that an advocate's authority derives from the client's instructions and that where representation is contested the court's primary duty is to identify who holds valid instructions. Because the contest could not be resolved from the record alone, and because the dispute went to the root of the proceedings since any step taken by an advocate without authority would be a nullity, the court found that the most prudent course was to seek clarification directly from the litigants. The court ordered that the Petitioners attend court to confirm which advocate is duly instructed to act for them. No costs order was made and no authorities were cited. The ruling is procedural and interlocutory in nature; it determines no substantive claim, decides no merits issue, and makes no finding on the underlying petition. The petitioners' own confirmation in court will resolve the question of representation going forward.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court could determine which of the two rival law firms holds valid instructions to act for the Petitioners

Holding

The court could not resolve the contest from the record alone and directed the Petitioners to attend court to confirm their instructed advocate

Reasoning

An advocate's authority flows from client instructions. With two firms each asserting valid instructions, the dispute goes to the root of the proceedings because any unauthorized step would be a nullity. Since the record could not resolve the conflict, the prudent course was to obtain clarification directly from the litigants rather than rule between the firms.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An advocate's authority derives from the client's instructions, and a step taken by an advocate without authority is a nullity
  • Where contested representation cannot be resolved from the record, the court may require clarification directly from the litigant

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Petitioners shall attend court to confirm the Advocate duly instructed to act on their behalf
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent authority of the court to determine who holds valid instructions to act for litigants before it

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kathumba & another (Suing as legal representative of the Estate of the Late John Kathumba Makuthi) v Kenya Airports Authority & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E061 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 989 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/989/eng@2026-02-20

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