Kiminza & 11 others v Amboseli Court Ltd (Environment and Land Case 643 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 4072 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court allowed clients to switch lawyers after winning judgment, ruling the old lawyer's unpaid fees are protected through the bill of costs taxation process.
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 firm of messrs Kalwa & Co. Advocates should come on record for the Plaintiffs after judgement
Key legal issues
#Whether the firm of Kalwa & Co. Advocates should be granted leave to come on record for the Plaintiffs after judgment
The application was allowed; the incoming firm was granted leave to come on record despite the judgment having been delivered on 21st February 2022
The court applied Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which governs change of advocates after judgment. It noted the outgoing advocate had already filed an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs, protecting her fee claim through taxation and possible execution of the decree. Following S.K. Tarwadi v Veronica Muehlemann on the protective purpose of Order 9 rule 9, the court held the outgoing advocates would suffer no prejudice if leave were granted, and allowed the application with costs in the cause.
Whether the application was incompetent for failure to expressly cite Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The objection did not defeat the application; the court relied on Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules in allowing it
The outgoing advocate argued the application was incompetent because it failed to expressly cite Order 9 Rule 9. The court considered that rule verbatim but did not strike out the application for the pleading defect. Instead it substantively determined whether leave should issue, noting the rule's protective purpose for advocates whose clients seek to change representation after judgment, and found the outgoing advocate's interests safeguarded through the already-filed Bill of Costs.
Whether outstanding legal fees should be settled before the incoming advocate comes on record
No; the outgoing advocate should await taxation of her Bill of Costs and may execute the decree emanating therefrom
The outgoing advocate claimed Kshs.883,906.50 in unpaid fees and asserted a lien, arguing fees should be resolved first. The court held that since she had already filed an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs, she should await the outcome of taxation and proceed to execute the decree emanating therefrom. On that basis she would suffer no prejudice from the change of representation, and the Plaintiffs' right to change advocates could be exercised.
Legal principles established
#- A change of advocate after judgment cannot be effected without an order of the court made upon application with notice to all parties, or upon a consent filed between the outgoing advocate and the incoming advocate or party intending to act in person
- An outgoing advocate's right to fees is protected by the taxation process; filing an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs means the outgoing advocate suffers no prejudice where leave to come on record is granted
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the firm of Kalwa & Co. Advocates to come on record for the Plaintiffs in place of M/s Koki Mbulu & Co. Advocates
- 2.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules (change of advocate after judgment requires an order of the court)
Relief refused
#Priority resolution and payment of the outgoing advocate's outstanding legal fees (Kshs.883,906.50) before the incoming firm comes on record
The court found no prejudice since the outgoing advocate had already filed an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs and can await taxation and execute the decree emanating therefrom
Costs
Costs will be in the cause.
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.
In the circumstances, I find the Plaintiffs' instant Notice of Motion application successful and I will allow it.
I find that the erstwhile Counsels will suffer no prejudice if I allow the firm of messrs Kalwa & Co. Advocates to come on record for the Plaintiffs and will proceed to do so.
Since the firm of messrs Koki Mbulu & Co. Advocates have already filed their Advocate Client Bill of Costs, I opine that they should await outcome of the taxation and proceed to execute the Decree emanating therefrom.
…In my view, the essence of the order 9 rule 9 of the CPR was to protect advocates from the mischievous clients who will wait until a judgment is delivered and then sack the advocate and either replace him….
Costs will be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The court in which the judgment was delivered and the case number are not stated anywhere in the judgment text
The date of delivery of the judgment (2nd July 2026) is inconsistent with the application dated 21st October 2025 and reference to a judgment delivered 21st February 2022; the year 2026 may be a typographical error for an earlier year
The judgment refers only to 'the Plaintiffs' and 'the 1st Plaintiff' but the names of the parties are nowhere stated in the text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiminza & 11 others v Amboseli Court Ltd (Environment and Land Case 643 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 4072 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4072/eng@2026-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.