Stephen Maina Githiga & 5 others v Kiru Tea Factory Company Ltd
The bottom line
#Court struck out unauthorized law firm's pleadings, upholding earlier ruling on proper representation.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court ruled that once a court has decided which law firm properly represents a party, any other firm that tries to step in without proper authority cannot file documents. In this case, Triple OK Law filed papers for Kiru Tea Factory, but the court had already said Kithinji Marete & Company Advocates was the correct firm. As a result, all documents filed by Triple OK Law were removed from the case. The court also gave the appellants 21 days to respond to an application to strike out their appeal.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Notice of Appointment of Advocates and Notice of Change of Advocates filed by M/s. Ochieng, Onyango, Kibet & Ohaga Advocates should be struck out.
- 2.Whether the Notice of Appeal and Petition filed by the appellants should be struck out.
Key legal issues
#Whether the firm of M/s. Triple OK Law was properly on record for the respondent.
The firm was not properly on record because the court had already ruled that Kithinji Marete & Company Advocates was properly on record, based on an existing Court of Appeal order.
The court had previously determined in Application No. 12 of 2019 that Kithinji Marete & Company Advocates was properly on record for the respondent, relying on a Court of Appeal order dated 6 December 2017. Therefore, any subsequent appointment of another firm without proper authority was invalid, and all pleadings filed by that unauthorized firm were struck out.
Whether the Notice of Appeal and Petition should be struck out for abuse of process.
The court deferred this determination, allowing the appellants 21 days to respond to the application.
The respondent argued that the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th appellants had withdrawn their application for review and were no longer parties, making the appeal an abuse of process. However, the appellants had not responded to this application. The court gave them 21 days to file a response before deciding on the striking out application.
Legal principles established
#- A court's prior ruling on proper representation binds all subsequent filings by other firms.
- Any notice of appointment or change of advocates filed without proper authority is invalid and liable to be struck out.
- Pleadings filed by an unauthorized law firm are struck out entirely, not just the appointment documents.
- A party must respond to applications before the court can rule on them; failure to respond leads to orders for a response.
- The court can defer a decision on striking out an appeal to allow a party to file a response.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Appointment of Advocates dated 4 April 2019, filed by M/s. Ochieng, Onyango, Kibet & Ohaga Advocates, is struck out.
- 2.The Notice of Change of Advocates dated 15 April 2019, filed by M/s. Ochieng, Onyango, Kibet & Ohaga Advocates, is struck out.
- 3.All pleadings filed by M/s. Ochieng, Onyango, Kibet & Ohaga Advocates on behalf of Kiru Tea Factory Company Limited are struck out.
- 4.The appellants shall, within 21 days, file a response to the second Notice of Motion dated 3 May 2019.
- 5.The determination of the application to strike out the Notice of Appeal and Petition shall await further directions.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution (implied as the appeal is from the Court of Appeal)
- Consolidated with
- Supreme Court Application No. 12 of 2019 (Stephen Maina Githiga & Others v. Kiru Tea Factory Company Limited)
Relief refused
#Striking out of the Notice of Appeal dated 29 March 2019 and Petition No. 13 of 2019
The court deferred the determination, allowing the appellants 21 days to respond first.
Costs
Costs shall be in the cause.
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.
The appellants shall, within 21 days of the date of this Ruling, file a response to the second Notice of Motion, dated 3 May 2019.
The determination of the application to strike out the Notice of Appeal dated 29 March 2019, and filed 1 April 2019, and Supreme Court Petition No. 13 of 2019 (i.e., the second application), shall await further directions of this Court.
Costs shall be in the cause.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Respect prior court rulings on representation
Before filing a notice of appointment or change of advocates, verify that no prior court order has already determined who is properly on record for the client. If such an order exists, you must obtain leave from the court or have the prior firm formally cease to act. Failure to do so will result in all your pleadings being struck out, wasting time and costs.
Ensure your lawyer has proper authority
If you change law firms while a case is ongoing, confirm that the new firm has followed the correct legal procedure to be recognized by the court. The court may reject documents filed by a firm that does not have clear authority, potentially delaying your case. Always ask your new lawyer whether the previous firm has been formally replaced in the court records.
Monitor who represents you in court
If you are a party to a lawsuit, keep track of which law firm is officially on record for you. If you want to switch lawyers, make sure the change is done properly through the court. Otherwise, documents filed by the new lawyer may be thrown out, and you could lose important legal ground. Ask your lawyer for a copy of any court order confirming the change.
Frequently asked questions
#What happens if a law firm files documents without proper authority in Kenya?+
The court can strike out all documents filed by that unauthorized firm, including pleadings and notices. This means the firm's work is ignored, and the party must start again with the correctly authorized lawyer. This is what happened in Stephen Maina Githiga v. Kiru Tea Factory Company Limited.
Can a party switch lawyers after a court has already decided who represents them in Kenya?+
Yes, but only with proper court approval. If the court has already ruled that a particular firm is properly on record, any new firm must follow the correct procedure, such as filing a notice of change with the court's consent. Otherwise, the new firm's documents will be struck out.
What is a notice of appointment of advocates in Kenya?+
It is a document filed in court to inform the court and other parties that a specific law firm is now representing a party. If the court has already recognized another firm, the new notice is invalid unless the previous firm has been properly removed from the record.
How long do I have to respond to a court application to strike out my case in Kenya?+
The court sets a deadline. In the Stephen Maina Githiga case, the Supreme Court gave the appellants 21 days to file a response to an application to strike out their appeal. If you miss the deadline, the court may decide the application without your input.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stephen Maina Githiga & 5 others v Kiru Tea Factory Company Ltd", Case Analysis (2019). Petition 13 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2019/81/eng@2019-11-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.