[2017] KEELC 1581 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 1581 (KLR)

The court held that M/s Bruce Odeny & Company Advocates were not properly on record for the Defendants because they failed to comply with Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires either leave of court or written consent of the previous advocate after judgment has been entered. The notice of change...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 1581 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Churchil Omollo Bodo; Defendant: Rev. Lukio Otieno; Defendant: Rev. Walter Okeyo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 21 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Notice of Motion After Consent Judgment
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld; notice of change of advocate and notice of motion struck out with costs to the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Change of Advocate, Consent Judgment, Order 9 Rule 9, Procedure After Judgment
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Change of Advocate Consent Judgment Order 9 Rule 9 Procedure After Judgment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Churchil Omollo Bodo

Plaintiff

Rev. Lukio Otieno

Defendant

Rev. Walter Okeyo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Notice of Motion After Consent Judgment

  1. 1 Whether M/s Bruce Odeny & Company Advocates were properly on record for the Defendants after judgment had been entered.
  2. 2 Whether the notice of motion dated 25th January 2017 was filed by a counsel properly on record for the Defendants.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the preliminary objection.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that M/s Bruce Odeny & Company Advocates were not properly on record for the Defendants because they failed to comply with Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires either leave of court or written consent of the previous advocate after judgment has been entered. The notice of change of advocate dated 2nd November 2016 was filed without such leave or consent, and the subsequent notice of motion dated 25th January 2017 was therefore incompetent. The attempt to include a prayer for leave to come on record within the same application did not cure the procedural defect, as the proper procedure would have been to first obtain leave before filing any substantive...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld; notice of change of advocate and notice of motion struck out with costs to the plaintiff

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The notice of change of advocate dated 2nd November 2016 is struck out.