Malel v Chepkirong (Land Case E013 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8319 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kapsabet court allowed a law firm to withdraw its request to quit a case after the client restored instructions, with no costs ordered.
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 Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2025 seeking leave for the firm of Cherono Chepkosgey & Company Advocates to cease acting for the defendant should be allowed, withdrawn or otherwise disposed of
Key legal issues
#Whether an advocate's application to cease acting may properly be withdrawn where instructions have been restored
The application was allowed to be withdrawn because counsel received full instructions to continue acting for the defendant
Counsel informed the court that upon discussion with the defendant, who had been duly served with the application, she had received full instructions to proceed acting for her in the suit. She therefore sought to withdraw the application and have the suit fixed for further hearing. The court, subscribing to the confidence-based relationship between advocate and client, found counsel at liberty to withdraw the application having given reasons, and marked it withdrawn with no orders as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- The client places confidence, faith, reliance and trust in the advocate, whose aid, advice, opinion and protection is sought from time to time
Court orders
#- 1.The application (Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2025) is marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs
- 2.It is so ordered
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the court over applications by advocates to cease acting; no specific constitutional or statutory provision cited
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.
Accordingly, the application is hereby marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs.
'....the client places his or her confidence , faith, reliance and trust in the advocate, whose aid, advice, opinion and protection is sought from time to time.....'
She is therefore, at liberty to withdraw the application having given reasons thereof
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent spelling of the applicant law firm within the judgment - 'Cherono Jepkosgey & Company Advocates' versus 'Cherono Chepkosgey & Company Advocates'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Malel v Chepkirong (Land Case E013 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8319 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8319/eng@2025-11-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.