Mberia v M’aritho (Environment and Land Case 85 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 2955 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Meru struck out a litigant's application and their new advocates' filings because court fees were unpaid and no consent allowed the change of lawyers.
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's filings should be struck out for non-payment of requisite court fees
- 2.Whether the firm of Maitai Rimita & Co Advocates was properly on record when it lodged the application
- 3.Whether the post-judgment change of advocates complied with the requirement of a consent
Key legal issues
#Effect of non-payment of court fees on filings and on an advocate's status on record
Non-payment of the requisite fees meant the firm was not properly on record, rendering the application incurably defective
The court had invited the applicant to show cause why the filings should not be struck out after the Case Tracking System showed unpaid fees. Counsel conceded the fees on the notice of change of advocates were unpaid. The court reasoned that since the notice of appointment carried unpaid fees, the firm of Maitai Rimita & Co Advocates was not properly on record when it lodged the application, and the defect could not be salvaged.
Requirements for a post-judgment change of advocates
A post-judgment change of advocates requires a consent permitting the incoming firm to come on record; absent a consent, the notice of change and memorandum of appearance are irregular
The court noted that although a post-judgment notice of change of advocates dated 29/4/2026 was on record, no consent permitting the incoming firm to come on record post-judgment existed. It also noted an irregular post-judgment memorandum of appearance filed by the plaintiff himself. These irregularities, together with unpaid fees, justified striking out all three documents.
Legal principles established
#- An advocate who has not paid the requisite court fees on filings is not properly on record, and filings lodged through such counsel are defective
- A post-judgment change of advocates requires a consent permitting the incoming firm to come on record
Court orders
#- 1.The memorandum of appearance dated 29/4/2026 is struck out
- 2.The notice of change of advocates dated 29/4/2026 is struck out
- 3.The application dated 20/4/2026 is struck out
- 4.No order as to costs
- 5.Liberty to bring a competent application for an order amending/reviewing the consent decree, subject to compliance with the law on post-judgment change of advocates
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent supervisory powers over its own registry and filings; matter auto-allocated to the court (no express statutory provision cited)
Relief refused
#The applicant's application (dated 20/4/2026 per the orders) for amendment/review of the consent decree
The application was incurably defective because court fees had not been paid and the applicant's advocates were not properly on record post-judgment without a consent
Costs
No order as to costs
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.
Given that court fees had not been paid on the notice of appointment, it follows that the firm of Maitai Rimita & Co Advocates was not properly on record at the time they lodged the application dated 29/4/2026.
In light of the above irregularities, the memorandum of appearance dated 29/4/2026; the notice of change of advocates dated 29/4/2026; and the application dated 20/4/2026 are all struck out with no order as to costs.
The party seeking to effect post-judgment change of advocates shall comply with the law. They will be at liberty to bring a competent application for an order amending/reviewing the consent decree.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the application as dated 29/4/2026 in the reasoning but strikes out an application dated 20/4/2026 in the orders, creating an inconsistency about the date of the application struck out
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mberia v M’aritho (Environment and Land Case 85 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 2955 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2955/eng@2026-05-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.