[2021] KEELC 3723 (KLR)
The court found that the application to change advocates was filed after the judgment and outside the stipulated time for lodging a Notice of Appeal as required by Rule 75(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The court held that allowing the new firm to come on record would not remedy the failure to comply with the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 3723 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Revelation Mission Centre; Respondent: African Church of the Holy Spirit
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 2 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Change of Advocate Post Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Change of Advocate, Leave to Appear, Appeal Procedure, Court of Appeal 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
Revelation Mission Centre
Appellant
African Church of the Holy Spirit
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Change of Advocate Post Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave should be granted for the new firm of advocates to come on record for the appellant after judgment.
- 2 Whether the application for change of advocate complies with the procedural requirements under the Court of Appeal Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application to change advocates was filed after the judgment and outside the stipulated time for lodging a Notice of Appeal as required by Rule 75(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The court held that allowing the new firm to come on record would not remedy the failure to comply with the mandatory procedural timelines. As such, the application lacked merit and was dismissed as it would serve no practical purpose in the absence of compliance with the rules governing appeals.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for leave to allow Victor L. Andande & Co. Advocates to come on record for the appellant is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC APPEAL CASE NO. 02 OF 2020
REVELATION MISSION CENTRE............................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
AFRICAN CHURCH OF THE HOLY SPIRIT........................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This application seeks the following orders:
1. THAT the Application herein be certified urgent and be heard ex-parte in the first instance.
2. THAT leave be granted for the firm of Victor L. Andande & Co. Advocatesto come on record for the Appellant/Applicant herein in place of M/S I.C.Mugo & CO. Advocates.
3. THATthere be no orders as to costs.
2. It has the following grounds:
a) THAT the Applicant was the unsuccessful party in the suit herein against the Respondent
b) THATthe Appellant/Applicant intends to change his Advocate so that his current Advocate can pursue the Intended Appeal at the Court of Appeal.
c) THAT it is only fair that the Application herein be allowed as time for the Intended appeal is running out.
d) Thatthe firm of Victor L. Andande & Co Advocates have tried filing documents in relation to the appeal but the registry staffs have declined to allow the same claiming said firm is not on record.
e) THAT it is in the interests of the justice that the Application herein be heard as a matter of urgency.
3. The court has perused the application dated 13th April, 2021. The application seeks that leave be granted for the firm of Victor L. Andande & Co. Advocates to come on record for the Appellant/Applicant herein in place of M/S I.C. Mugo & Co. Advocates.
4. The court notes that the apposite Judgment was delivered on 17th March, 2021. This application was filed on 14th April, 2021. It is quite clear that the filing of this application evinces inordinate delay. I have not been shown that a Notice of Appeal was filed within the stipulated time under the Court of Appeal rules.
5. As per Rule 75(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, Notice should be lodged within 14 days after the date of the decision against which it is desired to appeal.
6. This means that allowing the firm of Victor L. Andande & Co. Advocates to come on record in place of the firm of I.C. Mugo & Co. Advocates, will not cure this breach of the apposite rules. Allowing the new firm to come on record will, in my view, amount to a pyrrhic and an inconsequential exercise.
7. In my view, this application is not meritorious.
8. This application is, therefore, dismissed.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT CHUKA THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021 IN THE PRESENCE OF:
CC: Ann
Application made and a ruling delivered via E-mail.
P. M. NJOROGE,
JUDGE.