REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Case 20 of 2006 IN THE MATTER OF HOUSE NO. 431 COMPRISED IN NAIROBI LAND REFERENCE NO. 93/431 PLAINSVIEW, NAIROBI AND IN THE MATTER OF SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2513 OF 1998 1. RAZIA IQBAL MAJOTHI 2. ROSY Y. MAJOTHI 3. HALIM MAJOTHI ………………………………..…...PLAINTIFFS VERSUS 1. FARIDA KARIM 2. ABID KARIM ……………………….......……………..DEFENDANTS RULING There is a judgment on record, even if it may turn out that it was irregularly sought by an advocate who had no practicing certificate and irregularly entered. But it has not been set aside; any change of advocates must therefore be sanctioned by leave of the court under Order III, rule 9A of the Civil Procedure Rules (the Rules). No such leave has been sought or obtained. M/s Aming’a, Opiyo, Masese & Co., Advocates must therefore seek and obtain such leave if they wish to prosecute the application by notice of motion dated 18th July, 2007. I will give them a chance to obtain the necessary leave. They must so apply within fourteen (14) days of delivery of this ruling; otherwise the said application shall stand struck out with costs to the Respondents. I will also award costs of the proceedings that have prompted this short ruling to the Respondents. Those shall be the orders of the court. DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2007 H. P. G. WAWERU JUDGE DELIVERED THIS 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2007
Original judgment
Reference No. 93/431 Plainsview, Nairobi v 1. Farida Karim 2. Abid Karim
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.