Kabaru v Craft Silicon Limited (Civil Appeal (Application) E849 of 2023) [2026] KECA 410 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a law firm can formally withdraw from representing an unresponsive client by simply serving the required application and order on them.
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 applicant firm of advocates has met the requirements of Rule 23(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 for leave to cease acting for the appellant
- 2.Whether service of the application on the appellant was effected as required by the Rule
- 3.What order as to costs should be made
Key legal issues
#Requirements for leave to cease acting under Rule 23(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
The Rule is permissive: the advocate need only express the desire to cease acting and bring that desire to the client's attention; evidence of service of the application satisfies the Rule and earns the court's intervention.
The court adopted the explanation of the Rule by Nambuye JA in Kenya Tea Agency & Another v. Samuel W'njuguna & 115 Others, that the Rule is permissive and requires only expression of the desire to cease acting and communication of that desire to the client. The applicant had served the application and hearing notice on the unresponsive appellant, as evidenced by two affidavits of service, and there was no response to the application. Leave was therefore granted.
Compliance with service requirements under Rule 23(2)
The applicant complied with Rule 23(2) by effecting service of the application on the appellant, as shown by the affidavits of service sworn by Waweru Mwangi.
The applicant relied on Rule 23(2) and cited Commissioner of Insurance vs Kensilver Express Limited & 192 others. Two affidavits of service sworn by Waweru Mwangi showed service of the application on the appellant on 5th November 2025 and service of the hearing notice on 2nd February 2026. The court found this sufficient compliance, noting there was no response to the application.
Legal principles established
#- Under Rule 23(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, an advocate seeking leave to cease acting need only express the desire to cease acting and bring that desire to the client's attention; the advocate ceases to act upon service of a certified copy of the judge's order on the party.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to Muri Mwaniki Thige & Kageni LLP Advocates to cease acting for the appellant in the appeal
- 2.No order as to 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, 2022 (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 Rule is permissive. All that an advocate needs to do under the above Rule to earn the courts intervention is for such an advocate to express the desire to cease acting and then cause the desire to cease acting to be brought to the attention of his client.
It is thus my finding that the application dated 28th October 2025 is merited, and the firm of Muri Mwaniki Thige & Kageni LLP 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 appeal number, the names of the parties to the appeal, or a neutral citation; the appellant is only referred to generically.
The applicant law firm, being the party before the court on this application, is referred to as 'the Applicant' rather than as an appellant; party roles are ambiguous because the underlying appeal is not identified.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kabaru v Craft Silicon Limited (Civil Appeal (Application) E849 of 2023) [2026] KECA 410 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/410/eng@2026-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.