Kiminza & 11 others v Amboseli Court Ltd (Environment and Land Case 643 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 4072 (KLR)

2. b. That this Honourable Court do grant leave to the firm of Kalwa & Co. Advocates to come on record for the Plaintifi in place of M/s Koki Mbulu & Co. Advocates. c. That the costs of this application be provided for. The application is premised on grounds on its face and on the 1st Plaintifi’s supporting afidavit. He avers that judgement herein was delivered in the Plaintifis’ favour on 21st February 2022 and that the Plaintifis have all along been represented by messrs Koki Mbulu & Co. Advocates but their relationship with her has broken down and they are no longer able to maintain a healthy and productive advocate – client relationship thus they have resolved to change advocates as they have a right to do so at any time of the proceedings. Response 3. The application is opposed vide the replying afidavit of Evelyn Koki Mbulu, advocate. She avers that the 1st Plaintifi and his intended new advocate made no attempts to consult her for a possible consent on the takeover of this matter. Further, that there is no mention of professional work undertaken since the Judgment in February of 2022 and the payment of legal fees, given that it took immense efiort and industry to collect part payment of Kshs.2,400,000/= being portions of the total outstanding decretal sum of Kshs.26,586,928.46/=. 4. She contends that the dictates of justice require the proper balance of her right to legal fees, which remain outstanding in the sum of Kshs.883,906.50/=, as well as the right of the Plaintifis to new legal representation. Further, that she is entitled pending the taxation of the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs to rights of lien, of any sums that she is holding, to protect the recovery of her legal fees. 5. She insists that the question of outstanding legal fees should be resolved first and paid before the firm of messrs Kalwa & Co. Advocates comes on record. She also confirms that she has filed an Advocate/ Client Bill of Costs and is awaiting a date for taxation. 6. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. Submissions 7. The Plaintifis reiterate their averments in support of their application and submit that it is only fair that they be allowed to pursue their interest through alternative representation. To buttress their averments, they relied on the case of S.K. Tarwadi v Veronica Muehlemann [2019] eKLR. 8. On her part, the Plaintifi’s previous advocate reiterates her averments in her afidavit in opposition. She acknowledges that the Plaintifis have a right to choose and be represented by an advocate pursuant to Article 50 (g) of the Constitution but argues that the Plaintifis’ application is incompetent for failure to cite Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Analysis and Determination 9. Upon consideration of the instant Notice of Motion application including the respective afidavits, as well as the rivalling submissions, the only issue for determination is whether the firm of messrs Kalwa & Co. Advocates should come on record for the Plaintifis after judgement. 10. It is not disputed that judgment in this matter was delivered on 21st February 2022. The Plaintifis contend that the relationship between themselves and their previous advocate has irretrievably broken down thus they seek leave to be allowed to seek alternative representation. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4072/eng@2026-07-02 2

page 2 of 3

11. On her part, the Plaintifis’ outgoing advocate argues that the application is incompetent because the Plaintifis failed to expressly cite Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. She also contends that she is owed legal fees amounting to Kshs.883,906.50 together with interest and that she has already filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs for taxation. 12. Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that: “ Where there is a change of advocate, or when a party decides to act in person having previously engaged an advocate, after judgment has been passed, such change or intention to act in person shall not be efiected without an order of the courta. upon an application with notice to all parties or b. upon a consent filed between the outgoing advocate and the proposed incoming advocate or party intending to act in person, as the case may be.” 13. In this instance it emerged that the Plaintifis’ current advocates already filed an Advocate Client Bill of Costs. The Plaintifis have sought to change representation after judgement and issuance of a Decree but have not explained how they intend to settle their erstwhile Advocate’s fees. 14. In the case of S. K. Tarwadi vs Veronica Muehlmann [2019] eKLR, the Judge observed as follows: “ …In my view, the essence of the order 9 rule 9 of the CPR was to protect advocates from the mischievous clients who will wait until a judgment is delivered and then sack the advocate and either replace him….” 15. Since the firm of messrs Koki Mbulu & Co. Advocates have already filed their Advocate Client Bill of Costs, I opine that they should await outcome of the taxation and proceed to execute the Decree emanating therefrom. In the circumstances while relying on the provisions of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules and associating myself with the decision cited above, I find that the erstwhile Counsels will sufier no prejudice if I allow the firm of messrs Kalwa & Co. Advocates to come on record for the Plaintifis and will proceed to do so. 16. In the circumstances, I find the Plaintifis’ instant Notice of Motion application successful and I will allow it. 17. Costs will be in the cause. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 CHRISTINE OCHIENG JUDGE In the presence of: Koki Mbulu for Plaintifi Court Assistant: Vena https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4072/eng@2026-07-02 3

page 3 of 3