Karinga & another (Suing as the legal representatives of the Estate of the Late John Karinga Kabiru) v Kabiru (Sued as the legal representative of the Estate of the Late Peter Githu Kabiru) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E010 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2081 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court removed a law firm from a family land dispute because the firm had previously acted for the opposing side's late relative.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Disqualification of an advocate for conflict of interest
Where a firm previously acted for a party whose interests are now adverse and whose confidential information could prejudice the opponent, continued representation portends real mischief and the firm is disqualified.
The court acknowledged the constitutional right to counsel of choice but held it is not absolute. An undisputed prior retainer by the late Peter Githu Kabiru, whose interests are connected to the Defendant's, created a nexus. Information held by the firm could be lethal to the Defendant's case, so real mischief and prejudice were anticipated and disqualification followed.
Test for disqualification
The court must be satisfied that real mischief and real prejudice will probably result if the advocate is allowed to act, and must interrogate whether the application is a tactical manoeuvre.
Drawing on Rakusen v Ellis Munday & Clarke and Kings Woolen Ltd v Kaplan & Stratton, the court applied the requirement of anticipated mischief and listed factors such as derailment of proceedings, deprivation of counsel of choice, settling personal scores, or abuse of the judicial system, before concluding the Applicant's fears were justified.
Legal principles established
#- A litigant has a constitutional right to an advocate of choice, which the court will interfere with only where interests of justice would not be served
- Proof of a retainer alone does not establish conflict of interest; prejudice and risk of misuse of confidential information must be shown
- The party seeking disqualification bears the burden of demonstrating real mischief and prejudice
Court orders
#- 1.The firm of Gakuhi Chege & Associates Advocates is disqualified from representing the Plaintiffs in this matter
- 2.The Plaintiffs are at liberty to engage any other Counsel/firm for representation
- 3.The Application dated 6/11/2025 is allowed as prayed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court (Environment and Land Court) to regulate professional conduct of advocates appearing before it and protect fair trial rights
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karinga & another (Suing as the legal representatives of the Estate of the Late John Karinga Kabiru) v Kabiru (Sued as the legal representative of the Estate of the Late Peter Githu Kabiru) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E010 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2081 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Originating Summons dated 21/8/2025 (Nyandarua ELC) – Ruling on Application dated 6/11/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2081/eng@2026-04-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.