AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistrateAllowednot stated in the excerpt· [2026] KEMC 348 (KLR)
Wesonga v Kollotongi (Environment and Land Case E40 of 2022) [2026] KEMC 348 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#A Bungoma court allowed a judgment creditor to switch advocates without the usual notice because the former lawyer had left practice to join the ODPP.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This is a first-instance ruling by the Senior Principal Magistrate at Bungoma in an ex-parte matter in which judgment had already been entered for the plaintiff against the defendant, who had failed to appear or file a defence. The plaintiff, previously represented by M/S Mechi & Associates Advocates, applied by notice of motion dated 07/07/2026 under a certificate of urgency for leave to bring on board M/S Muri Mbugua & Associates in place of the outgoing firm, to continue with execution of the judgment and resultant decree. The plaintiff explained that Mr. Mechi had secured employment as a state counsel in the ODPP's office. The court accepted the explanation, noting that Mr. Mechi's move to the ODPP was within the public domain, and held that the requirement under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules that the outgoing advocate and the defendant be notified of the change was technically obviated. Because the matter was undefended and the application was allowed ex-parte in the first instance without a hearing, the court saw no harm in certifying it urgent. The magistrate allowed the application in terms of prayers (1) and (2): certifying the application urgent and granting the firm of Muri Mbugua & Associates leave to come on record for the plaintiff in place of M/S Mechi & Associates. Costs were ordered to be in the cause, and the file was to be placed away pending execution at the plaintiff's convenience.
Key legal issues
#01
Change of advocate after judgment without the usual notice under Order 9 Rule 9
Holding
Leave granted ex-parte; notice requirement obviated because the former advocate has joined the ODPP as a state counsel and the matter is undefended
Reasoning
The court accepted the plaintiff's explanation that Mr. Mechi had secured employment as a state counsel in the ODPP's office, a fact within public domain, and noted the matter proceeded ex-parte. On that basis it allowed the application straight away without hearing, holding the notification requirement technically obviated.
p. 1
Legal principles established
#- Where the outgoing advocate has left practice (joined public office), the notification requirement under Order 9 Rule 9 is technically obviated
Court orders
#- 1.Application certified as urgent
- 2.Firm of Muri Mbugua & Associates granted leave to come on record for the Plaintiff/Applicant in place of M/S Mechi & Associates
- 3.Costs of the application in the cause
- 4.Matter to be filed away pending execution at the plaintiff's convenience
- 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, "Wesonga v Kollotongi (Environment and Land Case E40 of 2022) [2026] KEMC 348 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/348/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.