[2019] KEHC 8978 (KLR)
The court found that there was no evidence on record of a notice of change of advocates replacing P.K. Mutai & Co. Advocates with Muema & Associates, nor was there proof that the application to bring Albert Kamunde & Co. Advocates on record had been served on the outgoing advocates as required by Order 9, Rule 9 of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 8978 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter N. Kirigua; Applicant: Mary Kirigua; Respondent: Kiogora Mutai & Co. Advocates
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 337 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Change of Advocates and Review of Orders
- Outcome
- motion dismissed
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Change of Advocates, Review of Court Orders, Certificate of Taxation, Order 9 Rule 9 Civil Procedure Rules
- 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
Peter N. Kirigua
Applicant
Mary Kirigua
Applicant
Kiogora Mutai & Co. Advocates
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Change of Advocates and Review of Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the firm of Albert Kamunde & Co. Advocates can properly come on record for the applicants in place of Muema & Co. Advocates under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the court's order made on 6th July, 2018 and the Certificate of Taxation dated 8th November, 2017 should be reviewed and/or set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no evidence on record of a notice of change of advocates replacing P.K. Mutai & Co. Advocates with Muema & Associates, nor was there proof that the application to bring Albert Kamunde & Co. Advocates on record had been served on the outgoing advocates as required by Order 9, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. As such, the court held that the requirements for a proper change of advocates had not been met. Consequently, the firm of Albert Kamunde & Co. Advocates could not be deemed properly on record for the applicants, and the application for review and/or setting aside of the court's previous orders lacked merit. The motion was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
motion dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 20th September, 2018 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 337 OF 2011
PETER N. KIRIGUA...........................................................1ST APPLICANT
MARY KIRIGUA...............................................................2ND APPLICANT
VERSUS
KIOGORA MUTAI & CO. ADVOCATES..........................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Peter N. Kiragu and Mary Kirigua, the 1st and 2nd applicants respectively took out the Notice of Motion dated 20th September, 2018 in which they sought for the following orders interalia:
(i) Spent.
(ii) THAT the firm of M/S ALBERT KAMUNDE & CO. ADVOCATES be and is hereby admitted to properly come on record for the applicants in the place of M/S MUEMA & CO. ADVOCATES.
(iii) Spent.
(iv) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to review and/or set aside the orders made on 6th July, 2018 and order that the Certificate of Taxation dated 8th November, 2017 be vacated and/or set aside and the same be fixed for inter-parties’ hearing.
(v)THAT the costs of the application be provided for.
2. The applicants filed the affidavit of Peter N. Kigigua in support of the motion. The firm of Kiogora Mutai & Co. Advocates filed the replying affidavit of Ronald Khavagali to oppose the motion.
3. When the motion came up for interpartes hearing, this court made an order directing the parties to file and exchange written submissions.
4. I have considered the grounds stated on the face of the Motion and the facts deponed in both the supporting and the replying affidavits together with the rival submissions.
5. The first issue for determination concerns the change of advocates. The applicants are of the submision that the firm of P.K. Mutai & Co. Advocates which first represented them only entered appearance and thereafter ceased all court attendances and/or communications with them.
6. That the firm of Muema & Associates replaced the aforesaid firm of advocates vide a Notice of Change of Advocates filed in court on 18th April, 2018. The applicants aver that they now wish to have the firm of Albert Kamunde & Co. Advocates to come on record pursuant to Order 9, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
7. The respondent on the other hand is of the submission that the firm of P.K. Mutai & Co. Advocates never ceased acting for the applicants herein.
8. I have perused the record and it is apparent that there is no copy of a notice of change of advocates replacing the firm of P.K. Mutai & Co. Advocates with that of Muema & Associates. Similarly, it is not in dispute that the firm of advocates formerly mentioned never ceased acting. Under the circumstances, I am unable to confirm that a notice of change of advocates was previously filed.
9. Furthermore and in line with the provisions set out under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an application seeking to effect a court order for a change of advocates ought to be served upon all parties which must include the firm of advocates to be replaced. It appears thiss has not been done here.
10. In the premises, it remains unclear as to when the firm of Muema & Co. Advocates came on record. If at all there was a notice of change of advocates filed in that respect, the current application has not been served upon the former advocates to grant them the opportunity of either contesting or conceding to the same, thereby making it difficult to regularize the coming on record of the firm of Albert Kamunde & Co. Advocates. I therefore find no basis on which to grant the order sought.
11. The second prayer is for review and/or setting aside of this court’s order made on 6th July, 2018. Having determined that the firm of Albert Kamunde & Co. Advocates cannot be deemed to be properly on record for the applicants, this court’s takes the view that the Motion lacks merit.
12. The upshot is that the Motion is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi this 28th day of February, 2019.
………….…………….
J.K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
……………………………. for the Applicants
……………………………. for the Respondent