Kimanthi Mwanzwii & 56 others v Cactic International Limited [2021] KEELRC 2023 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenyan litigants can change advocates after judgment without their former lawyer's consent, as long as they pay outstanding fees.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a litigant may change advocates on record without the outgoing advocate's consent after judgment
Yes. Leave of court suffices in the absence of consent; the litigant's freedom to appoint or terminate representation is unfettered, subject to payment of fees and notification under Order 9 Rule 9.
The court held that a litigant has absolute authority to appoint an advocate and retains authority to terminate it, subject to payment of fees for work done. Misunderstandings at the tail end of successful representation are regrettable but do not fetter the litigant's freedom. The position adopted was that asserted by Korir J in S.K. Tarwadi v Veronica Muehlemann and Radido J in Kazungu Ngari YAA v Naran Mulji & Co. Advocates.
Whether the notice of intention to act in person should be declared a nullity
No declaration of nullity was made; the notice was struck out because the claimants had withdrawn it.
The claimants had filed a notice of intention to act in person but subsequently sought to engage a new advocate. The court did not declare the notice a nullity as sought; instead it noted the notice had been withdrawn by the claimants and struck it out on that basis while granting leave for the incoming firm to come on record.
Legal principles established
#- A litigant has absolute authority to appoint an advocate and to terminate that authority, subject only to payment of fees for work done and notification in terms of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Court orders
#- 1.The application for change of advocate is granted subject to full payment of the requisite fees to the outgoing Advocate and/or any other suitable arrangement between the outgoing advocate and the incoming advocate
- 2.The earlier Notice to Act in person is struck out, having been withdrawn by the claimants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimanthi Mwanzwii & 56 others v Cactic International Limited [2021] KEELRC 2023 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of Motion dated 31/8/2020 (ELRC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2023/eng@2021-03-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.