Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELCL E027 OF 2026· [2026] KEELC 5874 (KLR)

Kibirech Arap Chemiron v Peres Jepchirchir

Environment and Land Court
24 September 2026
GOG M A Ongondo
639 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out withdrawal notices filed by a law firm the landowner never hired, reinstated his land case, and made that firm pay the costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet in an interlocutory Notice of Motion dated 11th August 2026 brought by the plaintiff, Kibirech Arap Chemiron, through Ngala C and Company Advocates. The application sought to strike out a Notice of Change of Advocates and a Notice of withdrawal of suit, both dated 6th August 2026, lodged by the firm of M/S Cherop Cheryl and Associates Advocates, and to have the suit reinstated, with costs against that firm. The plaintiff's supporting affidavit of sixteen paragraphs and eleven grounds asserted that the plaintiff had never instructed the Cherop Cheryl firm, and that the notices were filed without service on Ngala C and Company Advocates, the firm on record. The underlying suit concerns cancellation of registration of land parcel Kapsabet Municipality 116 on grounds of fraud and illegality. The respondents did not file a response. Counsel for the plaintiff filed an affidavit of service sworn on 18th August 2026, which the court accepted as primary proof of service, referencing Order 10 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. Relying on Butt vs Rent Restriction Tribunal, the court held that litigants and their professional advisors are the best judges of their affairs, and that the plaintiff had instructed only Ngala C and Company Advocates. Finding the application unopposed, properly presented and duly served, the court allowed it in the terms sought: the impugned notices were struck out, the suit was reinstated, the Cherop Cheryl firm was ordered to bear the costs, and the suit was fixed for pre-trial directions on 15th October 2026.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of notices filed by a firm of advocates never instructed by the party

Holding

The notices filed by M/S Cherop Cheryl and Associates Advocates were invalid as the applicant never instructed that firm; only Ngala C and Company Advocates was instructed

Reasoning

The court found it clear from the applicant's affidavit that only Ngala C and Company Advocates was instructed. Relying on Butt vs Rent Restriction Tribunal, the court held that litigants and their advisors are best judges of their affairs, so the unauthorised firm's notices could not stand.

p. 3
02

Service of the application on the respondents

Holding

The respondents were duly served as evidenced by the affidavit of service sworn on 18th August 2026; the unopposed application was therefore merited

Reasoning

Counsel filed an affidavit of service sworn on 18th August 2026 showing service on the respondents. The court noted Order 10 Rule 2 CPR 2010 requiring formal affidavit of service as primary proof of service, found service proved, and treated the application as unopposed and merited.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Litigants and their professional advisors are the best judges of their affairs; a party instructs counsel of its own choice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Change of Advocates and Notice of withdrawal of suit both dated 6th August 2026 filed by M/S Cherop Cheryl and Associates Advocates struck out and the suit deemed withdrawn reinstated forthwith
  2. 2.The firm of M/S Cherop Cheryl and Associates Advocates to bear the costs of the application
  3. 3.Suit fixed for pre-trial directions on 15th October 2026 and the defendants to be served accordingly
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; application under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kibirech Arap Chemiron v Peres Jepchirchir", Case Analysis (2026). ELCL E027 OF 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5874/eng@2026-09-24

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