Nderitu (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Paul Mwangi Nderitu) & another v Mwangi (Being sued as the Administrator of the Estate of Paul Mwangi Nderitu) & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E173 of 2024) [2026] KECA 367 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal let a law firm stop representing a client because communication had broken down, provided the client was properly served with the application.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the firm of Shako & Company Advocates should be granted leave to cease acting for the appellant in the appeal
- 2.Whether the requirements under Rule 23(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, including service on the client, were met
Key legal issues
#Leave to cease acting under Rule 23(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules
The application was merited because the applicant demonstrated a breakdown of communication and lack of instructions, and proved service of the application on the appellant.
Rule 23(2) permits an advocate who desires to cease acting for a party in a civil appeal to apply by notice of motion before a single Judge for leave. Citing Kenya Tea Agency v Samuel W'njuguna, the court held the Rule is permissive: the advocate need only express the desire to cease acting and bring it to the client's attention. Affidavits of service evidenced service on 2nd December 2025 and 12th February 2026, so the requirements were satisfied and leave was granted, with no order as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- Under Rule 23(2), an advocate seeking to cease acting need only express the desire to cease acting and bring that desire to the attention of the client; leave follows where the Rule's requirements, including service, are complied with.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the firm of Shako & Company Advocates to cease acting for the appellant in the appeal
- 2.No order as regards the costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 23(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules (application before a single Judge for leave to cease acting)
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.
The applicant has placed before the Court evidence of service of the application on the appellant and has therefore complied with the requirements of this rule.
It is thus my finding that the application dated 2nd December 2025 is merited, and the firm of Shako & Company Advocates is hereby granted leave to cease acting for the appellant in this appeal.
There shall be no order as regards the costs of the application.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number or title of the appeal in which the application was filed, identifying the application only by date.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nderitu (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Paul Mwangi Nderitu) & another v Mwangi (Being sued as the Administrator of the Estate of Paul Mwangi Nderitu) & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E173 of 2024) [2026] KECA 367 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 2nd December 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/367/eng@2026-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.