[2021] KEELC 3649 (KLR)
The court found that the application for change of advocates was meritorious, as the 1st Respondent had demonstrated efforts to obtain consent from the previous advocates, which were unsuccessful. The application complied with the mandatory legal requirements under the Civil Procedure Rules, and there was no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 3649 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Robert Mukembu Meeni; Respondent: Mutugi Cimba; Respondent: Nyaga Kiira; Respondent: Mugiira Kiria
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E003 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Change of Advocates
- Outcome
- Application allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Change of Advocates, Leave of Court, Representation Rights
- 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
Robert Mukembu Meeni
Appellant
Mutugi Cimba
Respondent
Nyaga Kiira
Respondent
Mugiira Kiria
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Change of Advocates
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st Respondent should be granted leave to change advocates after judgment.
- 2 Whether the application for change of advocates meets the legal requirements.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for change of advocates was meritorious, as the 1st Respondent had demonstrated efforts to obtain consent from the previous advocates, which were unsuccessful. The application complied with the mandatory legal requirements under the Civil Procedure Rules, and there was no evidence that any party would suffer prejudice if the application was granted. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to allow the change of advocates and granted the orders sought.
Court Disposition
Application allowed.
Orders
- The firm of Basilio Gitonga, Muriithi & Associates Advocates is granted leave to come on record in place of D.J. Mbaya & Co. Advocates for the 1st Respondent.
- Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND APPEAL NO. E003 OF 2020
ROBERT MUKEMBU MEENI....................................................APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
MUTUGI CIMBA..................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
NYAGA KIIRA .....................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
MUGIIRA KIRIA.................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This application is dated 13th April, 2021 and seeks orders:
1. THATthe firm of Basilio Gitonga, Muriithi & Associates Advocates be granted leave to come on record in this matter in place of the firm of D.J. MBAYA & CO. ADVOCATES for the 1st Respondent.
2. THAT costs of this application be in the cause.
2. The application has the following grounds:
1. THAT the instant Appeal emanates for the decision of the lower court in MARIMANTI SPM ELC CASE NO. 13 OF 2017.
2. THATa final judgment has been rendered in the Lower Court matter.
3. THAT the 1st Respondent was represented by the firm of D.J. MBAYA & CO. ADVOCATES in the proceedings before the Lower Court.
4. THAT the 1st Respondent is desirous of instructing another firm of Advocates in place of his former Advocates and hence this application.
5. THAT no party will suffer prejudice in the event the instant application is allowed.
3. The application is supported by the affidavit of advocate Mark Muriithi which states:
I, MARK MURITHI an adult male person of sound mind and of P.O. BOX 1491-60200, MERU do hereby make oath and state as follows:-
1. THAT I am an Advocate of the High court of Kenya practicing as such in the firm of Basilio Gitonga, Muriithi & Associates Advocates.
2. THAT the 1st Respondent has approached me seeking legal representation in this matter in place of D.J. MBAYA & CO. ADVOCATES.
3. THAT efforts to procure a consent from the firm of D.J. MBAYA & CO. ADVOCATES for purposes of change of advocates have been futile.
4. THAT the instant application is a mandatory prerequisite in accordance with the provisions of the law.
5. THATthis application is designed to serve the course of justice.
6. THATI depose to the foregoing believing the same to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, belief and understanding.
4. I find that the application is meritorious.
5. Prayers 1 and 2 in the application are allowed.
WRITTEN AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT CHUKA THIS 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Muthoni Mboi h/b J.G. Gitonga for the Appellant
Mark Muriithi for the 1st Respondent
Otieno for 2nd and 3rd Respondents absent
P. M. NJOROGE,
JUDGE.