Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 4876 (KLR)

Registered Trustees of kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme & another v Higher Education Loans Management Board & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 59 of 2014) [2025] KEELC 4876 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
26 June 2025
2,169 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that losing a case doesn't remove you from it, and granted a retirement scheme's new lawyers permission to represent it after judgment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Notice of Motion dated 23rd January 2025, the 1st Plaintiff, a staff retirement benefits scheme, sought leave under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the firm of Akide and Company Advocates to come on record after judgment had been entered on 6th February 2024, at which time it was unrepresented. The 1st Defendant opposed the Motion through Grounds of Opposition, contending that the 1st Plaintiff's suit had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 8th November 2022, that it therefore had no locus standi ('no dog in the fight'), and that its appeal against the dismissal was pending before the Court of Appeal. The 2nd Plaintiff did not participate. The court framed a single issue: whether leave should be granted. It accepted that leave is required under Order 9 Rule 9 once judgment has been passed, applying Tobias M. Wafubwa vs Ben Butali. On locus standi, the court rejected the 1st Defendant's contention, holding that a party whose suit is dismissed for want of prosecution does not lose standing to participate in post-judgment proceedings, including review, reinstatement, defence of a counterclaim and appeal. Section 34(3) of the Civil Procedure Act preserves the identity of dismissed parties for execution purposes, and the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs' proprietary interests in the suit property were intertwined, the reliefs granted being rooted in shared rights. Noting that the post-judgment Motions prompting the application (a stay Motion, allowed, and a contempt Motion, withdrawn) were spent, the court nonetheless found the Motion merited. It granted leave for Akide and Company Advocates to come on record for the 1st Plaintiff and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a plaintiff whose suit is dismissed for want of prosecution retains locus standi in post-judgment proceedings

Holding

Yes; dismissal of a suit does not remove the party from the proceedings or strip them of standing to participate in consequential matters such as review, reinstatement, execution-related questions, or defence of a counterclaim.

Reasoning

The court held that the dismissal of a claim is distinct from removing a party from proceedings. Section 34(3) of the Civil Procedure Act preserves the identity of parties, including those whose suits were dismissed, for execution and related questions. The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs' proprietary interests in the suit property are intertwined, and the reliefs granted to the 2nd Plaintiff were rooted in shared rights. Even filing an appeal against the dismissal does not remove a party's locus.

p. 4
02

Whether leave is required for an incoming advocate to come on record after judgment under Order 9 Rule 9

Holding

Yes; where judgment has been rendered and the party was unrepresented at the time, the incoming advocate requires leave of court to come on record, which was granted.

Reasoning

It was undisputed that judgment had been rendered and that at the time of judgment the 1st Plaintiff was unrepresented by counsel. The application therefore fell squarely within Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which governs changes of advocate after judgment. The Court of Appeal in Tobias M. Wafubwa vs Ben Butali was cited on the rationale: after judgment, execution-type applications remain continuation-type proceedings in which leave under Order 9 Rule 9 applies.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party whose suit has been dismissed for want of prosecution does not thereby lose locus standi in the proceedings; they may pursue review, reinstatement, defend a counterclaim, or appeal, and the dismissal does not extinguish their standing in post-judgment proceedings.
  • Where judgment has been passed, a change of advocate requires leave of court or consent under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the firm of Akide and Company Advocates to come on record for and on behalf of the 1st Plaintiff/Applicant
  2. 2.Each party shall bear their own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 50 of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 9 Rule 9, Order 45 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Registered Trustees of kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme & another v Higher Education Loans Management Board & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 59 of 2014) [2025] KEELC 4876 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4876/eng@2025-06-26

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