Anne Waiguru & another v Martha Wangari Karua & 2 others
The bottom line
#A consent judgment is invalid if a party's lawyer was absent and unauthorized.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court ruled that a consent judgment cannot stand if one party's lawyer was not present and had not authorized anyone to act for them. In this case, the lawyer for Martha Karua was absent when a consent was recorded, and the other side's lawyer admitted he had no instructions to hold brief for her. The court set aside the judgment because true consent requires participation by both parties or their authorized representatives.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a case has been made to justify the setting aside of the Orders of 6th July, 2018
- 2.What is the effect if any of the Notice of Preliminary Objection?
- 3.What provision should be made for Costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether a consent judgment procured without the consent of a party can be set aside.
The consent judgment was set aside because the 1st Respondent's counsel was not present and had not authorized anyone to hold brief, meaning there was no actual consent.
The court found that counsel for the appellants admitted he had no instructions to hold brief for the 1st respondent's counsel. The court reasoned that without the participation and acknowledgment of the 1st respondent or her advocate, there could not have been any valid consent. The court noted that had the true facts been known to the single judge, he would not have adopted the 'Non-Consent' as a judgment. The court declined to determine if the consent was procured fraudulently due to insufficient evidence, but still set it aside.
What is the effect of a Notice of Preliminary Objection when the main petition has been abandoned?
The Preliminary Objection was rendered spent because the main petition it was triggered by was abandoned and never prosecuted.
The court observed that the application for stay of the Court of Appeal's judgment had been dismissed, and the matter proceeded in the High Court. The appellants never prosecuted their Petition of Appeal in the Supreme Court. The Preliminary Objection was triggered by the petition, and since the petition was abandoned, the objection became spent.
Legal principles established
#- A consent judgment requires actual participation or acknowledgment by each party or their authorized advocate.
- A lawyer cannot hold brief for another lawyer without specific instructions to do so.
- A consent judgment entered without a party's consent must be set aside, even without proof of fraud.
- A preliminary objection becomes spent when the main petition it was triggered by is abandoned.
- Costs follow the event; the party whose conduct caused the application bears the costs.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 5th September, 2018 is hereby allowed.
- 2.For the avoidance of doubt, the Consent Judgment of 6th July 2018 is hereby set aside.
- 3.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25th June, 2018 is hereby spent.
- 4.The Costs of this Application shall be borne by the Appellants in Petition of Appeal No.5 of 2018.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Supreme Court of Kenya (Deputy Registrar and single-judge bench)
- Petition No. 5 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution, Sections 3, 14 & 24 Supreme Court Act and Rules 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
it is clear to us that there could not have been any consent without the participation and acknowledgment of the 1st Respondent or her Advocate.
In reality therefore, Petition No. 5 of 2018 was abandoned thus rendering the Preliminary Objection spent.
The Notice of Motion dated 5th September, 2018 is hereby allowed.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Consent Judgment of 6th July 2018 is hereby set aside.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Verify instructions before holding brief
Always confirm you have explicit instructions before holding brief for another advocate. If you admit you lack instructions, the court will treat any consent as invalid. This ruling reinforces that holding brief without authority is professional misconduct and can undo entire settlements.
Ensure legal representation is authorized
When settling disputes through consent, verify that the lawyer signing for the other side has actual authority. If your lawyer holds brief without instructions, the settlement can be set aside, wasting time and money. Always get written confirmation of representation before finalizing any consent.
Check your lawyer attended court
If you have a court case, confirm your lawyer was present at every mention. If a consent judgment is entered without your lawyer's knowledge or authorization, you can apply to set it aside. Keep your lawyer's contact details and ask for updates after each court date.
Frequently asked questions
#Can a consent judgment be set aside in Kenya if my lawyer was absent?+
Yes, the Supreme Court of Kenya ruled that a consent judgment entered without your lawyer's presence or authorization is invalid. You can apply to set it aside, even without proving fraud, as long as you show your lawyer was not involved.
What happens to a preliminary objection in Kenya when the main case is abandoned?+
The preliminary objection becomes spent, meaning it has no legal effect. The Supreme Court held that if the main petition is abandoned and never prosecuted, any objection triggered by that petition is automatically rendered useless.
Can a lawyer in Kenya hold brief for another without instructions?+
No. The Supreme Court clarified that a lawyer cannot hold brief for another advocate without specific instructions. If they do, any consent or agreement they sign is invalid because the absent lawyer's client did not consent.
Who pays costs when a consent judgment is set aside in Kenya?+
The party whose conduct caused the application to set aside the consent judgment bears the costs. In this case, the appellants who obtained the invalid consent were ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Waweru v Seke & 3 others; Mundia & others (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 91 of 2011) [2025] KEELC 3452 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 3452 (KLR)29 Apr 2025applied
- Kirima v Ruhangi & 8 others; Kirima & 4 others (Interested Parties) (Civil Appeal 350 of 2019) [2024] KECA 1754 (KLR)[2024] KECA 1754 (KLR)6 Dec 2024
- Pauline Mutee Makumu & another v Ursula Kreszenntia & 3 others [2019] KEELC 102 (KLR)[2019] KEELC 102 (KLR)7 Oct 2019distinguished
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anne Waiguru & another v Martha Wangari Karua & 2 others", Case Analysis (2019). Petition (Application) 5 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2019/89/eng@2019-12-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.