Githire v George & 11 others (Environment and Land Originating Motion E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5278 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court reinstated a dismissed land case, but ruled an advocate without a current practising certificate cannot be paid for his work or keep filing documents.
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 court should allow reinstatement of the amended application dated 19th August 2025 (dismissed on 20th January 2026 for want of prosecution)
- 2.The consequences of the applicant's advocate, Kelvin Mugambi Mugwuku, being inactive for 2026 and not holding a current practising certificate
Key legal issues
#Whether the dismissal of the applicant's application for want of prosecution on 20th January 2026 should be set aside and the application reinstated
Yes. The mention was only to confirm compliance with filing of responses, the application was to be canvassed by written submissions, and the applicant had been diligent; reinstatement was granted in the interest of justice.
The court reviewed the record and found that the 20th January 2026 mention was to confirm compliance with filing of responses and fix a date for ruling, not a full inter-partes hearing. Ms. Muthoni held brief but withdrew because instructions were withdrawn minutes before. The court found inadvertence by the applicant in instructing his counsel but held that, given his diligence and desire to prosecute, reinstatement served the interest of justice.
The effect of the applicant's advocate being inactive for 2026 and not holding a current practising certificate
The filing is not invalidated, but the advocate is denied remuneration for documents prepared while inactive and barred from filing further documents until he regularizes his status.
Relying on Section 34 of the Advocates Act and the Supreme Court decision in National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Anaj Warehousing Ltd, the court held that documents prepared by an advocate without a current practising certificate are not thereby invalid, but the advocate remains subject to civil, criminal and disciplinary liability and cannot recover fees for such work. The court directed accordingly and restricted further filings.
Legal principles established
#- A document filed by an advocate not holding a current practising certificate is not invalidated merely by that fact, per the Supreme Court in National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Anaj Warehousing Ltd
- Section 34 of the Advocates Act bars unqualified persons from taking instructions or preparing documents relating to legal proceedings and from receiving fees for such work
- A diligent litigant desirous of prosecuting an application may be granted reinstatement of an application dismissed for want of prosecution in the interest of justice
Court orders
#- 1.Defendants/Respondents to file and serve their responses within seven (7) days from the date of the ruling
- 2.Plaintiff/Applicant to file and serve a supplementary affidavit, if need be, together with submissions within seven (7) days after service
- 3.Defendants/Respondents to file and serve further affidavits, if need be, together with submissions within seven (7) days after service
- 4.Mention on 4th November, 2026 to take a date for ruling
- 5.No orders as to costs
- 6.Kelvin Mugambi Mugwuku is not entitled to remuneration in respect of documents prepared while not holding a current practising certificate
- 7.Kelvin Mugambi Mugwuku barred from filing any further documents in this matter until he regularizes his inactive status
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 12 rule 7 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Costs of the application
The court declined to award costs, ordering no orders as to costs
Right of Mr. Mugwuku to remuneration/further filing
His name was inactive on the LSK advocate search engine for 2026; he is not entitled to fees and may not file further documents until he regularizes his status
Costs
There are no orders 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.
The plaintiff/applicant, having been diligent in prosecuting his application, and desirous of continuing with prosecution of the same, may be granted reinstatement of his application, in the interest of justice.
no instrument or document of conveyance becomes invalid under Section 34(1)(a) of the Advocates Act, only by dint of its having been prepared by an advocate who at the time was not holding a current practising certificate.
i. The defendants/respondents have seven (7) days from the date of this ruling within which to file and serve their responses.
v. There are no orders as to costs.
The counsel is also barred from filing any further documents in this matter until he regularizes his inactive status.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the mention date inconsistently: the 11th November 2025 orders fixed mention for 20th February 2026, but the narrative elsewhere describes the dismissal as occurring on 20th January 2026
The supporting affidavit's description of the dismissal date conflicts with the affidavit of the 2nd, 7th, 8th and 9th defendants as to the identity and role of counsel on the dismissal date
The application is described as dated 30th January 2026 yet relates to an order made on 20th January 2026 and seeks reinstatement of an application 'dated 8/19/2025' rendered inconsistently with the '19th August, 2025' date elsewhere
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Githire v George & 11 others (Environment and Land Originating Motion E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5278 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC LOM No. E001 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5278/eng@2026-08-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.