Georgopoulou (Formerly Stavroula Rousalis) v Denancy Investments Ltd & 8 others (Environment and Land Case 86 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4303 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Makueni dismissed a defendant's attempt to change lawyers and overturn a judgment, finding the move was a delaying tactic.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether leave ought to be granted to the firm of Nyamwaro & Company Advocates to come on record for the 1st Defendant
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff's replying affidavit is defective
- 3.Whether the Applicant has met the threshold for setting aside of the judgment delivered on 7th May, 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether leave should be granted for a change of advocates post-judgment
Leave was refused because the outgoing firm, Rene & Hans Advocates LLP, was never properly on record; Otwal & Manwa Associates remained the advocates on record.
Order 9 Rule 9 requires a court order or consent to effect a change of advocates after judgment. The court found no notice of change of advocates on record establishing that Rene & Hans had been duly appointed. Allowing the incoming firm to replace a firm not duly appointed would be null and void.
Whether the Plaintiff's replying affidavit sworn by her advocate was defective
The affidavit was not defective; the averments concerned the chronology of proceedings within the advocate's knowledge by virtue of his participation.
Applying Kamlesh Mansukhlal Damji Pattni v Nasir Ibrahim Ali, there is no express prohibition against an advocate deposing to facts within his own knowledge or where the client is not readily available. The Applicant failed to identify specific offensive averments or paragraphs outside the advocate's knowledge.
Whether the ex parte judgment of 7th May 2025 should be set aside
The application was dismissed: the 1st Defendant was served, knew of the proceedings as shown by its own Court of Appeal affidavit, and the application was an afterthought.
Under Order 12 Rule 7 the court has discretion to set aside judgments entered in absence of a party on just terms, guided by Shah v Mbogo and CMC Holdings. Service through Otwal & Manwa Associates was proved, and the 1st Defendant's Director swore in the Court of Appeal that the ELC had heard the suit on 22nd November 2022, contradicting the claim of ignorance. The explanation of non-communication was unsatisfactory.
Legal principles established
#- A change of advocates after judgment cannot take effect without a court order or consent, and leave cannot be granted in favour of an incoming firm where the outgoing firm was never properly on record.
- An advocate may swear an affidavit on contested matters where the facts are within his own knowledge or the client is not readily available and sources are disclosed.
- The discretion to set aside ex parte proceedings is not available to a litigant who deliberately sought to obstruct or delay the course of justice.
Court orders
#- 1.The prayer for leave for the firm of Nyamwaro & Company Advocates to come on record for the 1st Defendant is disallowed
- 2.The Plaintiff's affidavit in reply is found not defective to warrant striking out
- 3.The application dated 17th December, 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 25(c), 48 and 50 of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 9 Rules 9 and 10, Order 10 Rule 11 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Leave for Nyamwaro & Company Advocates to come on record in place of Rene & Hans Advocates LLP
Rene & Hans Advocates LLP was never on record; Otwal & Manwa Associates remained the advocates on record and no notice of change was filed
Setting aside of the judgment delivered on 7th May 2025 and a fresh hearing
The 1st Defendant knew of the 22nd November 2022 proceedings, having sworn an affidavit to that effect in the Court of Appeal; the application was an afterthought meant to derail execution
Costs
The application dated 17th December, 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
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 dated 17 th December, 2025 is totally devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
This court cannot issue an order improperly allowing the firm of Nyamwaro & Company Advocates to come on record in place of a law that had not been duly appointed to act for the 1 st Defendant. Such action would be null and void.
This discretion is intended so to be exercised to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident, inadvertence, or excusable mistake or error, but is not designed to assist the person who has deliberately sought, whether by evasion or otherwise, to obstruct or delay the course of justice.
It is therefore indisputable that the present application to set aside proceedings and judgment has been made as an afterthought and is unquestionably meant to derail the execution of decree by the Plaintiff and cause further hardship.
Courts have always emphasized that parties have a responsibility to show interest in and to follow up their cases even when they are represented by counsel.
Issues in the judgment
#Chronology anomaly: the supporting affidavit is described as sworn on 28th November 2022 yet also described in the replying affidavit as sworn on 28th November, 2022 in support of the Court of Appeal application, while the notice of motion is dated 17th December 2025 and ruling delivered 13th July 2026; dates such as '2nd June, 2026' further affidavit and submissions appear internally consistent but the sequence spans unusual periods
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Georgopoulou (Formerly Stavroula Rousalis) v Denancy Investments Ltd & 8 others (Environment and Land Case 86 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4303 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC NO. 86 OF 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4303/eng@2026-07-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.