[2024] KEELC 4335 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant law firm had demonstrated sufficient grounds to cease acting for the plaintiff, namely irreconcilable differences and a breakdown of trust and confidence. The application was unopposed, and the plaintiff failed to attend court or provide any reason for absence. The court held that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 4335 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joshua Ouko Piemo; Defendant: The Hon Attorney General; Defendant: County Government Of Homa Bay; Defendant: National Land Commission
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Advocate's Application to Cease Acting
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- GMA Ongondo
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Ceasing to Act, Notice of Motion, Unopposed Application
- 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
Joshua Ouko Piemo
Plaintiff
The Hon Attorney General
Defendant
County Government Of Homa Bay
Defendant
National Land Commission
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Advocate's Application to Cease Acting
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant law firm should be granted leave to cease acting for the plaintiff due to irreconcilable differences.
- 2 Whether the application is merited given the absence of opposition from the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant law firm had demonstrated sufficient grounds to cease acting for the plaintiff, namely irreconcilable differences and a breakdown of trust and confidence. The application was unopposed, and the plaintiff failed to attend court or provide any reason for absence. The court held that advocates and their clients are best placed to determine the state of their relationship, and where confidence is lost, the advocate is entitled to withdraw. The court relied on established authority and the absence of opposition to grant the application, allowing the law firm to cease acting for the plaintiff with costs awarded to the applicant.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The firm of Kasamani & Associates Advocates is granted leave to cease acting for the plaintiff, Joshua Ouko Piemo.
- The costs of the application are awarded to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Piemo v Attorney General & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 4335 (KLR) (29 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 4335 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2023
GMA Ongondo, J
May 29, 2024
Between
Joshua Ouko Piemo
Plaintiff
and
The Hon Attorney General
1st Defendant
County Government Of Homa Bay
2nd Defendant
National Land Commission
3rd Defendant
Ruling
1. By a Notice of Motion application dated 19th April 2024, the firm of, Kasamani & Associates Advocates (the applicant herein) has sought leave to cease further acting for the plaintiff, Joshua Ouko Piemo herein. That the costs of the application be provided for.
2. The application is founded upon grounds 1 to 4 stated on the face of it. Also, an 11 -paragraphed affidavit of Vincent Mukoya, a partner of the said Law firm, is in support of the same. The lamentation of the applicant in brief is that there are serious irreconcilable differences between the plaintiff and the applicant which have caused confidence and trust between them to be completely eroded.
3. There is no response to the application by the plaintiff/respondent inspite of the court orders given on 14th May 2024.
4. I have carefully considered the application in entirety.Therefore, are the orders sought in the application merited?
5. The matter is fixed for inter-partes hearing today. The plaintiff is absent without any reason.
6. The plaintiff and his counsel, the applicant herein are the best advisors of their own affairs; see Butt -versus- Rent Restriction Tribunal (1979) eKLR.
7. The applicant has the right to cease further acting for the plaintiff/respondent in this suit based on the grounds advanced in the application.
8. In the circumstances, the application is unopposed and meritorious.
9. Thus, the application is allowed with costs to the applicant.
10. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT HOMA BAY THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024. G.M.A ONG’ONDOJUDGEPresent.1. Court Assistant, Mutiva.