Kassimu Sungura Kulecho v Norah Nyakoa Kulecho & Butali Sugar Mills Limited
The bottom line
#A Kakamega court allowed a company to change lawyers after judgment but refused to grant eviction orders in a case it had already closed.
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 deserves grant of leave to his new counsel MNO Advocates LLP, to come on record for him in the place of Getanda & Company Advocates
- 2.Whether the applicant deserves the orders sought
Key legal issues
#Leave for new advocates to come on record post-judgment
Granted; legal representation by an advocate of one's choice is a constitutional right
Order 9 Rule 9 requires leave for a change of advocates post-judgment. The court balanced this procedural requirement against the constitutional right to representation of one's choice and allowed MNO Advocates LLP to come on record for the 2nd defendant in place of Getanda & Co. Advocates.
Whether eviction and permanent injunction could be granted in a determined suit
No; the court lacked jurisdiction and the application was an abuse of process
The suit had been struck out as res judicata on 3rd May 2023 and costs taxed. Substantive relief such as eviction and injunction should have been sought by counterclaim before determination. Having struck out the suit, the court became functus officio and could not entertain substantive claims by application.
Legal principles established
#- A party may only change advocates or act in person post-judgment with leave of court under Order 9 Rule 9
- A court that has struck out a suit as res judicata becomes functus officio and cannot grant substantive relief such as eviction by way of a post-judgment application
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the firm of MNO Advocates LLP to come on record for the 2nd defendant in place of Getanda & Co. Advocates
- 2.The application dated 12th November 2025 struck out with no order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Order of eviction and vacant possession of Kakamega/N. Kabras/Malava/1206
Substantive claims that could only be raised in a separate suit or counterclaim, not in a determined suit; court functus officio
Permanent injunction restraining the respondents from the suit property
Same - substantive relief not available post-judgment by application
Order directing police officers to enforce eviction
Ancillary to the refused eviction order
Costs
No order as to costs on the application (the application was struck out 'with 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.
The prayers sought in the instant application are substantive claims which can only be raised in a separate suit and not within a determined suit like the one herein. Therefore, the application is an abuse of the court process.
I therefore, hereby strike out the said application, with no order as to costs.
Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires a party who wishes to change advocates or act in person post judgment, to do so upon grant of leave of court.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated 2026 but narrative refers to events in November 2025 as recent; possible typographical error in year
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kassimu Sungura Kulecho v Norah Nyakoa Kulecho & Butali Sugar Mills Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLC No. E015 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6002/eng@2026-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.