Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2026] KEELC 5381 (KLR)

Karumba v Mburu & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 723 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 5381 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 September 2026
CMC.G. MBOGO
1,117 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed a new law firm to replace another after judgment because both firms signed a consent, and excused documents filed early.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 2nd defendant moved the court by notice of motion dated 4th May 2026 under Order 9 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking to have the firm of Were & Oonge Advocates replace AKO Advocates on record, and to have the notice of change of advocates dated 10th April 2026 and a replying affidavit sworn on 9th April 2026 deemed as duly filed. The application was supported by an affidavit recording that the 2nd defendant had procured a consent dated 17th April 2026 from the outgoing firm. The plaintiff opposed through grounds of opposition dated 14th May 2026, describing the motion as incompetent, defective and an abuse of process, arguing among other things that the provisions invoked could not sustain the orders sought. The application was canvassed by written submissions. The court framed a single issue: whether Were & Oonge Advocates should be allowed on record for the 2nd defendant. Applying Order 9 rule 9, which requires an order of the court or a consent between outgoing and incoming advocates for a change after judgment, the court found the annexed consent in order and the plaintiff's objection insufficient, and allowed the new firm on record. On the deemed-filing prayer, the court noted the documents were filed before the consent and leave, but applying the Court of Appeal's guidance in Ruth Munda Gituro on the policy behind Order 9 rule 9 and the preference for deciding matters on their merits, held that no prejudice would arise and deemed the documents properly filed. The motion was allowed with no orders as to costs. Judgment delivered virtually on 3rd September 2026 by Hon. Mbogo C.G., Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the new firm of advocates could come on record for the 2nd defendant

Holding

Allowed, since a consent signed by both firms dated 17th April 2026 was annexed and the plaintiff did not sufficiently object

Reasoning

Order 9 rule 9 permits a change of advocates after judgment upon a consent filed between the outgoing and incoming advocates. The applicant produced a consent dated 17th April 2026 signed by both firms, satisfying the rule. The plaintiff's grounds of opposition did not sufficiently explain why the new firm should not act. The court therefore found no reason to decline the prayer and allowed it.

p. 3
02

Whether documents filed by the incoming firm before consent and leave could be deemed duly filed

Holding

Deemed properly filed, as no prejudice would occur and the prayers cured the defect

Reasoning

The notice of change of advocates and replying affidavit were filed before the consent was entered and before leave was granted, contrary to Order 9 rule 9. Applying the Court of Appeal's guidance in Ruth Munda Gituro, the court balanced the policy behind the rule against the preference for determining matters on their merits, found no prejudice, and deemed the documents properly filed.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A change of advocates after judgment cannot be effected without an order of the court or a consent between the outgoing and incoming advocates
  • Order 9 rule 9 protects advocates from litigants avoiding payment of legal fees, and protects litigants against unreasonable advocates through the court's leave power
  • Documents filed by an incoming advocate without prior leave may be deemed properly filed where no prejudice results

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The firm of Were & Oonge Advocates is allowed to come on record on behalf of the 2nd defendant in place of AKO Advocates
  2. 2.The notice of change of advocates dated 10th April, 2026 and the replying affidavit sworn on 9th April, 2026 filed on behalf of the 2nd defendant are deemed as duly filed
  3. 3.No orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 9 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karumba v Mburu & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 723 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 5381 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5381/eng@2026-09-03

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