Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment

Opado (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Joel Abuodha-Deceased) v Ongong'a & 9 others (Sued as the Administrator of the Estate of Tom Ong'ong'a Warindu-Deceases); Advocates (Applicant) (Environment & Land Case 24 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 5681 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 July 2024
GOGeorge M. A Ongondo
218 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short interlocutory ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay (Ongondo, J) on a Notice of Motion dated June 24, 2024, in which the advocate on record for the 8th defendant, Penina Odero, sought leave to cease acting for her, with costs in the cause. The applicant's complaint was that the 8th defendant had not properly given instructions to continue acting for her in the suit. Although served, the 8th defendant did not appear and the application was therefore unopposed. The court was further informed, without contradiction, that the 8th defendant had already instructed Ochilo and Co Advocates to act for her in the matter. Finding the application unopposed and merited, the court granted leave to the applicant to cease acting for the 8th defendant as sought. Costs of the application were ordered to be in the cause. The court also gave case management directions: further hearing of the suit was fixed for 14th October 2024, with PW1 to PW4 to be recalled for cross examination. Counsel present at delivery were Mr. B. Mulisa for the plaintiff, Ms. H. Kisaka for the 4th defendant, Ms. Ombaka for the 5th defendant, the 6th defendant in person, and Ms. Sarah Juma for the 9th and 10th defendants. No authorities or statutes were cited.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicant advocate should be granted leave to cease acting for the 8th defendant, and whether the costs of the application should be in the cause

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave should be granted to an advocate to cease acting for a client

Holding

The application, being unopposed and the 8th defendant having instructed new advocates (Ochilo and Co Advocates), was merited and leave was granted.

Reasoning

The applicant advocate complained that the 8th defendant had not properly given instructions to continue acting. The 8th defendant was duly served with the application but did not appear or oppose it. The court was also informed that the 8th defendant had instructed Ochilo and Co Advocates to act for her in the suit. In those circumstances, the court found the unopposed application merited and allowed it in terms sought.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.Leave granted to the applicant to cease acting for the 8th defendant as sought in the Notice of Motion dated June 24, 2024
    2. 2.Costs of the application be in the cause
    3. 3.Further hearing of the suit fixed for 14th October 2024 and PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 be recalled for cross examination

    The bench

    #

    One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

    GO
    majority

    Wrote the judgment

    Jurisdiction invoked
    Inherent powers of the court to grant leave to advocates to cease acting (unspecified provision)

    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 upshot is that the application is hereby allowed in terms of leave granted to the applicant to cease acting for the 8th defendant as sought therein.
    p. 2Disposition - leave to cease acting
    Costs of the application be in the cause.
    p. 1Costs order
    Further hearing of the suit fixed for 14th October 2024 and PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 be recalled for cross examination.
    p. 2Case management directions

    Issues in the judgment

    #
    minor

    The case number of the suit is not stated anywhere in the ruling.

    minor

    The applicant advocate/firm is not named in the ruling.

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Opado (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Joel Abuodha-Deceased) v Ongong'a & 9 others (Sued as the Administrator of the Estate of Tom Ong'ong'a Warindu-Deceases); Advocates (Applicant) (Environment & Land Case 24 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 5681 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5681/eng@2024-07-25

    Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.