Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited v Biego & 19 others (Environment and Land Case 96 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 5539 (KLR) (23 July 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 5539 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAPSABET ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE 96 OF 2021 GMA ONGONDO, J JULY 23, 2025 BETWEEN KENYA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED ..... PLAINTIFF AND KIBI ARAP BIEGO ........................................................................... 1ST DEFENDANT EMILY CHEPTOO MELI ................................................................ 2ND DEFENDANT JOHN KIBIWOT KIPLAGAT ........................................................ 3RD DEFENDANT PRISCILLAH SIMOTWO ............................................................... 4TH DEFENDANT MARK KEMBOI LELEI .................................................................. 5TH DEFENDANT ASHA NAFULA ................................................................................ 6TH DEFENDANT CHEGUGU STANLEY MAGRAY .................................................. 7TH DEFENDANT ELIUD KIPKORIR .......................................................................... 8TH DEFENDANT ROSEMARY CHELAGAT KOSKEI ............................................... 9TH DEFENDANT KIPRONO ARAP CHESASUR & ALEX MWARABU AGUI ... 10TH DEFENDANT JOSHUA KIMELI YEGO & LEAH JEBITOK SAINA (THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF KIPYEGO ARAP TUWEI) ....................... 11TH DEFENDANT KIBIWOT ARAP CHEMUIYWA ................................................. 12TH DEFENDANT CLEOPHAS KIPKETER SUGUT (THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF KIPSUGUT ARAP CHEPSIROR) ............................................... 13TH DEFENDANT JACKSON KIBET SEREM ............................................................ 14TH DEFENDANT CHERUTO RABLELEI BUREN .................................................. 15TH DEFENDANT JOYCELINE JEROP BETT ............................................................ 16TH DEFENDANT https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5539/eng@2025-07-23 1
page 1 of 3
GILBERT SAWE ............................................................................. 17TH DEFENDANT WILLIAM KIPKOSGEI MOSBEI ................................................. 18TH DEFENDANT GRACE JEPKETER KOGOI ......................................................... 19TH DEFENDANT ROBERT KIPCHUMBA KALGALEY ......................................... 20TH DEFENDANT RULING 1. 1. By the Chamber Summons application dated 21st July 2025, the firm of Betty Koech and Company Advocates for the, 2nd, 3rd, 4th to 8th defendants and 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 16th to 19th defendants is seeking the orders thus; a. That the firm of Betty Koech and Company Advocates be allowed to cease acting for the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th defendants. b. That costs of the application be provided for. The application is based on the afidavit of Betty C. Koech and the grounds, inter alia; (i) The said Defendants have failed to give further instructions to enable the firm continue representing them. (ii) Despite several attempts made, no instructions have been forthcoming and as such the firm is unable to proceed with the matter in the absence of instructions. 2. The respondents/defendants in the application were duly served with the application as disclosed in the afidavit of service sworn on 22nd July 2025. However, the 5th and 6th respondents are absent for inter parties hearing of the application. 3. Ms Betty Koech has sought to have the application allowed against the 5th and 6th respondents only as the other respondents’ intention is to give her further instructions in the matter. 4. So, is there merit in the instant application? 5. I have taken into account the provisions of the law including Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 under which the application was originated. The undefended application reveals that the respondents have not given further instructions to counsel herein. 6. Notably, in the case of Delphis Bank Limited v Channan Singh Chatthe & 6 others (2005) KECA 297, it was held, inter alia; ‘The right to a legal representation or advocate of his choice is a most valued constitutional right to a litigant..............’ 7. Besides, the instant application reveals that the 5th and 6th respondents have failed to substantially fulfil obligations to their counsel as regards their services in this suit. So, their counsel deserves the orders sought in the application. 8. The upshot of the foregoing is that the chamber summons dated 21st July 2025 is merited against the 5th and 6th respondents and the same is hereby allowed in terms of order NO. 2 sought therein as stated in paragraph 1 (a) hereinabove against the 5th and 6th defendants/respondents only. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5539/eng@2025-07-23 2
page 2 of 3
9. The 5th and 6th respondents are at liberty to engage another counsel or re-engage Betty Koech and Company Advocates or act in person. 10. Given the nature of the application, there shall be no orders as to costs. 11. It is so ordered DATED AND DELIVERED AT KAPSABET THIS 23RD JULY 2025 G M A ONGONDO JUDGE PRESENT Mr Mbugua learned counsel for the plaintifi Ms Koech learned counsel for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th to 8th defendants and 10th,11th, 13th, 14th, 16th to 19th defendants Mr Rotich learned counsel for the 20th defendant Walter, court assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5539/eng@2025-07-23 3
page 3 of 3