Jackson Kimani Waweru & 5 Others v Attorney General Kenya & 3 Others
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed the application because the new law firm was never properly placed on record, so the claimants' money requests failed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the firm of Murimi, Mbago & Muchela Advocates are properly on record for the 3rd & 6th Claimants/Applicants
- 2.Whether the application dated 18th May 2026 is competent and merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the incoming firm was properly on record after judgment
It was not; no consent with the former advocates or evidence of service was provided as required by Order 9 Rule 9
The court traced representation from Brian Otieno & Co. Advocates through Gordon Ogola Kipkoech & Co. Advocates to the incoming firm. It found no consent between the outgoing firm and Murimi, Mbago & Muchela Advocates and no proof of service of intention to take over. Following Kochieng and the Order 9 Rule 9 authorities, it held the firm lacked locus standi to prosecute the application.
Whether the application of 18th May 2026 was merited
It was not; an unchallenged order of 17th October 2023 already directed release of the deposit, and no appeal or review of it existed
The court noted the order of 17th October 2023 directed release of Kshs.636,992.40 to the Claimants' advocates and the balance of Kshs.6,678,626.20 to the 4th Respondent, with the matter to be marked settled. Since no appeal or review of that order had been filed, the court found the present application unmerited and dismissed it.
Legal principles established
#- A change of advocates after judgment requires either an order of the court made on notice to all parties or a consent filed between the outgoing and incoming advocates
- An advocate not properly on record lacks locus standi to file or prosecute an application, and other prayers cannot be entertained
Court orders
#- 1.Notice of Motion dated 18th May 2026 dismissed
- 2.Each party to meet their respective costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution; Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, section 12
Relief refused
#Leave for Murimi, Mbago & Muchela Advocates to come on record for the 3rd and 6th Claimants
No evidence of consent with, or service on, the former advocates as required under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Stay/preservation of the balance of monies deposited in court, payment of wage arrears, and reconciliation/verification of sums due
Application not merited; a valid order of 17th October 2023 directing release of the balance remains unchallenged
Costs
Each party to meet their respective costs of the application.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Murimi, Mbago & Muchela Advocates were not properly on record and therefore lacked locus standi to file or prosecute the application dated 18th May 2026
failure to observe the requirements of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules is a matter of jurisdiction and not one of procedural technicality
There being no appeal or review of the said order, the court finds this application is not merited and is dismissed.
The court orders each party to meet their respective costs of this application.
Issues in the judgment
#Application dated '18th May 2026' while cause number is 2014 and 3rd Claimant died in 2013, yet 6th Claimant purported to act with his authority
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jackson Kimani Waweru & 5 Others v Attorney General Kenya & 3 Others", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Cause No. 490 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2532/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.