[2015] KEELC 290 (KLR)

[2015] KEELC 290 (KLR)

The court found that since neither the applicant (M/s Weldon Ngetich & Company Advocates) nor their clients were present to move the application to cease acting, and the respondent and their advocate were also absent, there was no party to prosecute or oppose the application. In such circumstances, the court had no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELC 290 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Selina Chepkirui Torongei; Defendant: Emily Chepkoech Tonronei; Defendant: Mary Chepkirui Torongei
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kericho
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 16 ‘B’ of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application by Advocates to Cease Acting
Outcome
application dismissed for want of prosecution; advocates remain on record
Judges
MA Silau
Legal Topics
Advocate Ceasing to Act, Withdrawal of Counsel, Court Procedure, Land Dispute
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Advocate Ceasing to Act Withdrawal of Counsel Court Procedure Land Dispute

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Selina Chepkirui Torongei

Plaintiff

Emily Chepkoech Tonronei

Defendant

Mary Chepkirui Torongei

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application by Advocates to Cease Acting

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application by the defendants' advocates to cease acting should be heard in the absence of parties or their advocates.
  2. 2 Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that since neither the applicant (M/s Weldon Ngetich & Company Advocates) nor their clients were present to move the application to cease acting, and the respondent and their advocate were also absent, there was no party to prosecute or oppose the application. In such circumstances, the court had no option but to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. Consequently, the law firm of M/s Weldon Ngetich & Company Advocates remains on record for the defendants. No order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

application dismissed for want of prosecution; advocates remain on record

Orders

  • The application dated 13th May, 2015 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.