Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2026] KEELC 2537 (KLR)

Hirji & another v Chege (Environment and Land Case 430 of 2008) [2026] KEELC 2537 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 May 2026
MCMBOGO C.G.
1,654 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed an attempt to disqualify an incoming law firm, confirming two firms can act alongside each other without triggering a formal change of advocates.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs filed a notice of preliminary objection dated 23rd November 2025 challenging the defendant's notice of motion dated 11th November 2025 on two grounds: first, that the firm of Khaminwa & Khaminwa and Dr. Khaminwa were not advocates on record for the defendant/judgment debtor and were strangers to the proceedings whose pleadings should be struck out; and second, that the defendant was a contemnor who had disobeyed the orders of 28th October 2025 requiring him to lodge a full account of payments and should therefore be denied audience until he purged the contempt. The defendant replied through an affidavit sworn 26th March 2026, explaining that a notice to act alongside A.N Ndambiri & Co. Advocates was filed, that such a notice is not a notice of change of advocate, and that the objection raised disputed facts. The court applied the classic Mukisa Biscuits definition, as reinforced in John Musakali and Oraro v Mbaja, that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law on agreed facts capable of disposing of the matter without trial. Ground 2 failed because verifying the contempt allegations would require combing through evidence. Ground 1, though a pure point of law, also failed: applying Transnzoia Securities, the court found no notice of change of advocates had been filed, A.N Ndambiri remained on record, and the advocate-client relationship is contractual with terms unknown to third parties. The notice to act alongside was not fatal to the pleadings. The preliminary objection was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the contempt allegation against the defendant could be raised as a preliminary objection

Holding

Ground 2 failed because establishing contempt requires combing through evidence, outside the scope of a preliminary objection

Reasoning

The court held that where a replying affidavit is filed, the grounds contain disputed facts requiring rebuttal by evidence. Confirming the veracity of contempt allegations would require investigating facts, which cannot be done on a preliminary point of law. Ground 2 therefore failed to that extent.

p. 3
02

Whether the firm of Khaminwa & Khaminwa could validly act alongside A.N Ndambiri & Co. Advocates after judgment

Holding

The notice to act alongside was not fatal; there was no notice of change of advocates and A.N Ndambiri remained on record

Reasoning

Relying on Transnzoia Securities, the court noted Order 9 Rule 9 governs changes of advocate, but the notice to act alongside is not such a change. The advocate-client relationship is contractual and its terms are not known to other parties. Since A.N Ndambiri remained on record and no notice of change was filed, the representation was not improper and the pleadings could not be struck out.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law, undisputed in facts, capable of disposing of the issue without trial
  • A notice to act alongside is not a notice of change of advocate and does not offend Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of preliminary objection dated 23rd November, 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil suit jurisdiction; Civil Procedure Rules, Order 9 Rule 9 in issue

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hirji & another v Chege (Environment and Land Case 430 of 2008) [2026] KEELC 2537 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2537/eng@2026-05-04

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