[2024] KEHC 14883 (KLR)
The court found that the firm of Mungai Githinji & Company Advocates had not received instructions from the respondents since October 2023 and had made reasonable efforts to contact them without success. The application to cease acting was properly served on the respondents via WhatsApp, as permitted by the Civil...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 14883 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Brian Njau & Company Advocates; Respondent: Nicholas Ouma Ounda; Respondent: Matilda Achieng Aiyera; Respondent: Richard Ouma Ongundi; Respondent: Dennis Okidi; Respondent: Maurice Otieno
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Cease Acting
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- JM Chigiti
- Legal Topics
- Application to Cease Acting, Service of Process, Advocate Client Relationship
- 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
Brian Njau & Company Advocates
Applicant
Nicholas Ouma Ounda
Respondent
Matilda Achieng Aiyera
Respondent
Richard Ouma Ongundi
Respondent
Dennis Okidi
Respondent
Maurice Otieno
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Cease Acting
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the firm of Mungai Githinji & Company Advocates should be granted leave to cease acting for the respondents.
- 2 Whether the respondents were properly served with the application to cease acting.
- 3 Whether the court can compel an advocate to continue acting for a client who has lost touch or interest in the matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the firm of Mungai Githinji & Company Advocates had not received instructions from the respondents since October 2023 and had made reasonable efforts to contact them without success. The application to cease acting was properly served on the respondents via WhatsApp, as permitted by the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules 2020, and there was no opposition from the respondents. The court held that it is established law that an advocate may not be compelled to continue acting for a client who has lost touch or interest in the matter. Accordingly, the court was satisfied that the requirements for granting leave to cease acting had been met, and allowed the application.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The application for leave to cease acting is allowed.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
Brian Njau & Company Advocates v Ounda & 4 others (Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 14883 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (28 November 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 14883 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Judicial Review
Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2023
JM Chigiti, J
November 28, 2024
Between
Brian Njau & Company Advocates
Applicant
and
Nicholas Ouma Ounda
1st Respondent
Matilda Achieng Aiyera
2nd Respondent
Richard Ouma Ongundi
3rd Respondent
Dennis Okidi
4th Respondent
Maurice Otieno
5th Respondent
Ruling
1. The application before this Court is the amended Chamber Summons dated 26th June 2024. The application is brought under Order 9 Rule 13, and section 1A, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. It seeks the following orders:i.The firm of Mungai Githinji & Company Advocates, currently representing the Respondents, be granted leave to cease further acting for the said Respondentsii.The Costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is supported by an amended Supporting Affidavit of one Dennis Mungai Githinji sworn on even date.
3. The firm of Mungai Githinji & Co. Advocates received instructions from the Respondents herein to represent them in this matter.
4. The Applicant deponed that the firm took up the instructions and attended court as advocates for the Respondents however since the last court appearance on 31st October 2023, the firm of advocates has not received any instructions from the Respondents on how to prosecute the matter.
5. The Applicant further deponed that they despite efforts to reach the Respondents, they could not reach them through the contacts furnished to them.
6. The application to cease action has not been opposed by the Respondents. I have not traced on the record any replying affidavit(s) filed by the respondents following service upon them of the applicants’ application under consideration served upon them via WhatsApp on their registered phone numbers 0723XXXX78, 0721XXXX94, 0724XXXX45, 0721XXXX43 and 0725XXXX74 as borne out by the contents of the return of service sworn by Dennis Solomon Githinji Mungai on 29th July, 2024.
7. The formal application for leave to cease acting must be served on the party that the Advocate is on record for, and the Advocate should stop attending court only after court has granted leave to cease acting.
8. It is part of the courtesies that Advocates are expected to extend to the courts for the sake of good order. An Advocate comes on record formally, by filing a notice of appointment or notice of change of Advocates, which ought to be served on all the parties on record. Conversely, when an Advocate has to get out of the matter or the record, they have to do so formally, either upon leave of court vide an application to cease acting, or by way of another Advocate coming on record by filing a notice of change of Advocates.
9. Order 5 Rule 22C of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules 2020, allows service of summons to be effected by use of mobile- enabled messaging Applications by sending summons to the Defendant’s last known and used telephone number.
10. In light of the above, I am satisfied that the respondents had notice of the application but elected not to contest it.
11. The applicants’ firm of advocates wants to cease acting on behalf of the respondents because the Respondents have not given them further instructions on how they would like to prosecute their case.
12. In the Supreme Court case Petition (Application) No. E033 OF 2023, (Being an application by M/s Mbugua Ng’ang’a & Co. Advocates to cease acting for the 2nd respondent) where Justice S. C. Wanjala stated:-“I opine that, a court of law cannot compel counsel to continue acting for a party, who has lost touch or interest in the matter for whatever reason.”
Disposition; 13. I am satisfied the uncontested position herein and find merit in the applicant’s application as the applicants’ clients were duly notified of the contents of the application under consideration through alternative service via their personal phones and elected not to contest the application.
Order: 1. The Application is allowed.
2. Costs in the cause.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024. ………………………………………………J. CHIGITI (SC)JUDGE