Ogolla v Egesa (Case E009 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2519 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Busia court dismissed an attempt to undo a costs ruling, holding that serving your lawyer counts as serving you, and blaming your lawyer is not enough.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Proper of post-judgment service on the advocate on record
Service on the applicant's advocate on record was proper service; the applicant did not dispute it and only complained of counsel's failure to act
Order 9 Rule 1 permits acts in court to be done by an advocate duly appointed, and Order 9 Rule 3 makes service on a recognized agent as effectual as personal service unless the court directs otherwise. The applicant never suggested his counsel was improperly served; he merely blamed counsel for inaction, and offered no explanation of steps taken to follow up, so no denial of fair hearing arose.
Whether personal service of notice to show cause was required before execution
Not required; attachment and sale of movable properties is not among the execution modes attracting a mandatory notice under Order 22 Rule 18
Order 22 Rule 18 requires notice to a judgment-debtor only where execution is applied for more than one year after the decree, against a legal representative, or for attachment of salary or allowance under rule 43. The execution here was by attachment and sale of movables, a mode not listed, so the decree-holder was not obliged to personally serve the applicant with the notice to show cause.
Leave for incoming advocate to come on record after judgment
Refused because there was no evidence the application was served on the outgoing advocates as required by Order 9 Rule 9(1)(a)
Order 9 Rule 9(1)(a) requires that an application for leave to come on record after judgment be made upon notice to all parties, or else proceed by consent. The application on its face was intended to be served on the outgoing advocates, but no affidavit of service was filed. Without proof of that service, the statutory precondition was unmet and leave could not issue.
Whether the applicant made out a case for setting aside the ruling of 19th September 2025
No; the application was dismissed in its entirety
The applicant did not contest the taxation findings or the sum adjudged, only his advocates' conduct. Citing Habo Agencies and Ruga Distributors, the court held that blaming counsel without demonstrating tangible follow-up steps cannot excuse non-participation. Service on counsel being proper, the applicant was not denied a fair hearing and no basis existed to set aside the ruling or consequential execution orders.
Legal principles established
#- Service of post-judgment court processes on a party's advocate on record is proper service on the party unless the court otherwise directs
- It is not enough for a litigant to blame their advocate; they must show tangible steps taken in following up the matter
- A change of advocate after judgment requires either an application with notice to all parties or a consent between the outgoing and incoming advocates
- Personal notice to show cause against execution is only required for the modes of execution listed in Order 22 Rule 18, not for attachment and sale of movables
Court orders
#- 1.Leave to come on record for the firm of M/S B.M Ouma & Company Advocates refused for want of proof of service on the outgoing advocates
- 2.Application dated 20th January 2026 dismissed
- 3.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent powers under the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (invoked by the applicant); the ruling also engages Order 9, Order 10 rule 11 and Order 22 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogolla v Egesa (Case E009 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2519 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2519/eng@2026-04-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.