[2012] KEHC 5510 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 5510 (KLR)

The court held that the firm of M/s Kibichiy & Co. Advocates was not properly on record for the defendant/applicant after judgment, as they had not sought leave of the court or filed a consent with the outgoing advocates as required by Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Notice of Appointment filed by M/s Kibichiy & Co. Advocates was therefore a nullity, and the Notice of Motion dated 15th February, 2012 was incompetent. The court emphasized that compliance with procedural rules regarding representation is mandatory and cannot be disregarded as a mere technicality. As a result, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent was upheld, and the application was struck out...

Citation
[2012] KEHC 5510 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Monica Moraa; Defendant: Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
12 September 2012
Case Number
Civil Case 43 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Notice of Motion for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application struck out with costs to the respondent due to improper representation by the applicant's advocates.
Legal Topics
Change of Advocate After Judgment, Stay of Execution, Extension of Time, Representation Rules
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Change of Advocate After Judgment Stay of Execution Extension of Time Representation Rules

Case Brief

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monica Moraa

Plaintiff

Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Notice of Motion for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the firm of M/s Kibichiy & Co. Advocates was properly on record for the defendant/applicant after judgment was delivered.
  2. 2 Whether the Notice of Motion dated 15th February, 2012 was competent given the issue of representation.
  3. 3 Whether the court should grant extension of time and stay of execution pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the firm of M/s Kibichiy & Co. Advocates was not properly on record for the defendant/applicant after judgment, as they had not sought leave of the court or filed a consent with the outgoing advocates as required by Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Notice of Appointment filed by M/s Kibichiy & Co. Advocates was therefore a nullity, and the Notice of Motion dated 15th February, 2012 was incompetent. The court emphasized that compliance with procedural rules regarding representation is mandatory and cannot be disregarded as a mere technicality. As a result, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent was upheld, and the application was struck out...

Court Disposition

Application struck out with costs to the respondent due to improper representation by the applicant's advocates.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 15th February, 2012 is struck out.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.