[2023] KEELC 16253 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant law firm had the right to opt out of representing the 1st respondent, having provided reasons in their application and served the relevant parties. There was no opposition from the 1st respondent or the petitioner. The court held that the application was merited and allowed the law...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 16253 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Silas Abong’o Amollo; 1st Respondent: Jane Atieno Nyandiga; 2nd Respondent: Asego Divisional Land Dispute Tribunal; 3rd Respondent: Senior Resident Magistrate Homa-Bay Law Court; 4th Respondent: Attorney General; Applicant: Ms Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal And Partners Advocates
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Petition 1 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Advocate's Application to Cease Acting
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- GMA Ongondo
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Ceasing to Act, Leave to Cease Acting, Costs of Application
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Silas Abong’o Amollo
Petitioner
Jane Atieno Nyandiga
1st Respondent
Asego Divisional Land Dispute Tribunal
2nd Respondent
Senior Resident Magistrate Homa-Bay Law Court
3rd Respondent
Attorney General
4th Respondent
Ms Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal And Partners Advocates
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Advocate's Application to Cease Acting
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant law firm should be granted leave to cease acting for the 1st respondent.
- 2 Whether costs of the application should be borne by the 1st respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant law firm had the right to opt out of representing the 1st respondent, having provided reasons in their application and served the relevant parties. There was no opposition from the 1st respondent or the petitioner. The court held that the application was merited and allowed the law firm to cease acting for the 1st respondent. The court further ordered that the costs of the application be borne by the 1st respondent, in line with the orders sought.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Leave is granted to the firm of M/s Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal and Partners Advocates to cease acting for the 1st respondent.
- The firm of M/s Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal and Partners Advocates is discharged from acting for the 1st respondent, Jane Atieno Nyandiga.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
Amollo v Nyandiga & 3 others; Ms Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal and Partners Advocates (Applicant) (Environment & Land Petition 1 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 16253 (KLR) (7 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 16253 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Environment & Land Petition 1 of 2022
GMA Ongondo, J
March 7, 2023
Between
Silas Abong’o Amollo
Petitioner
and
Jane Atieno Nyandiga
1st Respondent
Asego Divisional Land Dispute Tribunal
2nd Respondent
Senior Resindent Magistrate Homa-Bay Law Court
3rd Respondent
Attorney General
4th Respondent
and
Ms Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal And Partners Advocates
Applicant
Ruling
1. By application dated March 4, 2023, the firm of M/s Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal and partners Advocates (the applicant herein) is seeking the following orders;a)The Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave and/or liberty to the firm of M/s Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal and Parties Advocates, to cease acting for the 1st Respondent.b)Consequently, the firm if M/s Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal and partners Advocates be discharged from acting for the 1st /respondent herein, namely, Jnae Atieno Nyandigac)Costs of this application be borne by the 1st Respondent.d)Such further and /or other orders be made as the court may deed fit and expedient.
2. The 1st respondent confirmed receipt of the application.
3. Mr OM Otieno, learned counsel for the Petitioner has no issue with the application.
4. The applicant has the right to opt out of this matter for reasons given in the application.
5. In the premises, the application is merited.
6. Accordingly, the application is allowed in terms of orders 1,2 and 3 sought therein and as stated at paragraph 1(a), (b) and (c) hereinabove.
7. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2023G.M.A ONG’ONDOJUDGEPRESENT:a. Mr. O.M Otieno for the Petitioner.b. Ms Aluoch Odera, holding brief for W. Ochwal for the 1st respondent.c. Okello and Mutiva, Court Assistants.