https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2955
Because the requisite court fees had not been paid, Maitai Rimita & Co Advocates were not properly on record when they lodged the application. The record also lacked a consent permitting post-judgment change of advocates. Those irregularities rendered the memorandum of appearance, the notice of change of advocates,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 2955 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Silas Kimathi Mberia; Defendant: Elizabeth Nkatha M’Aritho
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Case 85 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Court Ruling on Post Judgment Applications / Ex Parte Show Cause Ruling After Automated Allocation and Scrutiny of Filing Fees and Post Judgment Representation
- Outcome
- Application and associated filings struck out; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- ["BM Eboso"]
- Legal Topics
- Payment of Court Fees, Change of Advocates, Post Judgment Appearance, Competence of Application, Striking Out Filings, Consent Decree Amendment/review
- 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
Silas Kimathi Mberia
Plaintiff
Elizabeth Nkatha M’Aritho
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Court Ruling on Post Judgment Applications / Ex Parte Show Cause Ruling After Automated Allocation and Scrutiny of Filing Fees and Post Judgment Representation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the notice of change of advocates was properly filed without payment of the requisite court fees
- 2 Whether Maitai Rimita & Co Advocates were properly on record when lodging the application dated 20/4/2026
- 3 Whether a post-judgment change of advocates could be effected without a consent on record
Ratio Decidendi
Because the requisite court fees had not been paid, Maitai Rimita & Co Advocates were not properly on record when they lodged the application. The record also lacked a consent permitting post-judgment change of advocates. Those irregularities rendered the memorandum of appearance, the notice of change of advocates, and the application incompetent and liable to strike out.
Court Disposition
Application and associated filings struck out; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The memorandum of appearance dated 29/4/2026 is struck out.
- The notice of change of advocates dated 29/4/2026 is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU** **ELC LAND CASE NO. 85 OF 2016** **SILAS KIMATHI MBERIA...........................................PLAINTIFF** **=VERSUS=** **ELIZABETH NKATHA M’ARITHO............................DEFENDANT** **RULING** **[EX-TEMPORE]** 1. This matter was auto-allocated to this court but the Case Tracking System showed that the applicant had not paid the requisite court fees. Consequently, the court invited the applicant to attend court ex-parte and show cause why the filings should not be struck out. Counsel for the applicant has attended court today and has conceded that the requisite court fees relating to the uploaded notice of change of advocates was not paid. 2. Given that court fees had not been paid on the notice of appointment, it follows that the firm of ***Maitai Rimita & Co Advocates*** was not properly on record at the time they lodged the application dated 29/4/2026. In the circumstances, the application is incurably defective and cannot be salvaged. 3. That is not the only irregularity. There is on record a post-judgment memorandum of appearance expressed as having been filed by the plaintiff, **Silas Kimathi Mberia**. 4. In addition, there is a post-judgment notice of change of advocates dated 29/4/2026. However, missing from the court record is a consent permitting the firm of ***Maitai Rimita & Co Advocates*** to come on record post-judgment. 5. In light of the above irregularities, the memorandum of appearance dated 29/4/2026; the notice of change of advocates dated 29/4/2026; and the application dated 20/4/2026 are all struck out with no order as to costs. The party seeking to effect post-judgment change of advocates shall comply with the law. They will be at liberty to bring a competent application for an order amending/reviewing the consent decree. **DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.** **B M EBOSO [MR]** **JUDGE** **In the Presence of:** Mr Murithi Rimita for the Applicant Respondent – Elizabeth Nkatha M’Aritho Court Assistant – Mr. E. Tupet