Stephen Munene Njagi v Tharaka Nithi County Government [2021] KEELRC 1932 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court struck out a contempt application because the claimant's new advocates never properly came on record after judgment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether pleadings/applications filed by advocates not properly on record after judgment are incompetent
Yes - the change of advocates was effected without an order of the court or a valid consent predating the filing, so the advocates were not properly on record and the application was fatally defective
Order 9 Rules 5 and 9 mandate that a change of advocates after judgment requires either a court application with notice to all parties (including outgoing advocates) or a consent between outgoing and incoming advocates. The Claimant filed its contempt application first and only forwarded a purported consent 15 days later, without evidence of service on the outgoing advocates. Relying on John Langat and Simon Barasa Obiero, the court held such filings incompetent and struck out the application.
The consequences of a party's non-participation in the prosecution of proceedings
The Claimant's counsel's disinterest - failing to attend subsequent mentions or file submissions - left the preliminary objection unopposed, which contributed to its allowance
The Claimant appeared once on 25th November 2020 to seek a date for submissions but then failed to participate in two subsequent mentions or file any submissions. The court noted this disinterest, observed that the preliminary objection remained unprosecuted on the Claimant's part, and proceeded to allow the objection, tempered by an order that each party bear their own costs.
Legal principles established
#- A change of advocates after judgment may only be effected upon an order of the court made on application with notice to all parties, or upon a consent filed between the outgoing advocate and the incoming advocate or party
- Where a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter, it must down its tools
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 3rd November 2020 is allowed
- 2.The application for contempt of court dated 12th October 2020 is eliminated in its entirety and ceases to have any effect
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; the court exercised its inherent and procedural jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Rules (Order 9 Rules 5 and 9) to determine a preliminary objection to an application for contempt of court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stephen Munene Njagi v Tharaka Nithi County Government [2021] KEELRC 1932 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1932/eng@2021-03-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.