[2025] KEHC 8977 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 8977 (KLR)

The appeal was determined on the procedural ground that the appellant's counsel, Ndegwa Wahome & Company Advocates, was not properly on record when filing the application to set aside the judgments, as required by Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that after judgment, a change of advocate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 8977 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Paul Mwangi Gachomba; Respondent: David Githenya Mindi & 13 others
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyandarua
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
25 June 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E007 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_struck_out
Judges
KW Kiarie
Legal Topics
Change of Advocate Post Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Representation by Counsel, Order 9 Rule 9 Compliance
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Change of Advocate Post Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Representation by Counsel Order 9 Rule 9 Compliance

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Mwangi Gachomba

Appellant

David Githenya Mindi & 13 others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was properly represented by counsel in the trial court proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the firm of Ndegwa Wahome & Company Advocates was properly on record post-judgment as required by Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the trial magistrate erred in dismissing the application to set aside the judgments and refusing consolidation of the suits.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was determined on the procedural ground that the appellant's counsel, Ndegwa Wahome & Company Advocates, was not properly on record when filing the application to set aside the judgments, as required by Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that after judgment, a change of advocate must be effected either by a court order or by consent filed between the outgoing and incoming advocates, with notice to all parties. In this case, no such order was sought or obtained, and the notice of appointment did not comply with the mandatory requirements. The court further held that the appellant was represented by Ngaywa, Ngigi and Kibet Advocates during the trial, and...

Court Disposition

appeal_struck_out

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out with costs to the respondents.