Introduction
1. This Ruling determines the Notice of Motion dated 12th August 2026 in which the Applicant, Anne Muthoni Staudte , principally seeks leave to permit Munyithya, Mutugi, Umara & Muzna Co. Advocates to come on record for her after the delivery of Judgment on 30th July 2026.
2. The application is opposed by the 1st to 4th Respondents through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Linda C. Kitur on 27th August 2026 and by the 1st Interested Party through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Angulu Clyde on 27th August 2026 and oral submissions by counsel for the 6 th respondent.The 1st Interested Party does not oppose the Chamber Summons insofar as it seeks that the matter be certified urgent and heard during the Court vacation but opposes the substantive reliefs sought.
3. The firms of Perpetual Ndegwa and Co Advocates and Ongaro & Co advocates , who had represented the Petitioner previously were served as per the affidavit of Joseph Munyithia sworn on 28 th August 2026. They did not file any response and they did not appear during the hearing.
4. Having considered the nature of the application and the objections raised by the parties, I consider it important at the outset to delimit the scope of this Ruling. The issue presently before the Court is whether leave should be granted for the proposed advocates to come on record after Judgment . This Ruling does not determine the validity, competence, admissibility or legal effect of any Notice of Appeal, Notice of Change of Advocates, electronic communication or other document filed or relied upon by any party. Those issues, if properly raised, remain for determination in the appropriate proceedings.
Background
4. Judgment in this matter was delivered by this Court on 30th July 2026. The Applicant states that following the delivery of Judgment, she wished to pursue an appeal and instructed her then advocates to take the necessary steps. She avers that they declined or failed to act upon her instructions.
5. The Applicant thereafter appointed Munyithya, Mutugi, Umara & Muzna Co. Advocates and filed the present application on 12th August 2026, seeking leave for the said advocates to come on record after Judgment.
6. The Respondents and the 1st Interested Party dispute the Applicant's account. They contend, among other things, that the Applicant appeared in person when Judgment was delivered and that there had been changes in her representation without compliance with the provisions of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
7. They further contend that documents subsequently filed by the proposed advocates were filed before leave was obtained and are consequently irregular.
8. Those competing contentions provide the background against which the present application falls to be considered. However, as already stated, this Court confines itself in this Ruling to the question of representation.
Issue for Determination
9. The principal issue for determination is:
Whether leave should be granted under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules to permit Munyithya, Mutugi, Umara & Muzna Co. Advocates to come on record for the Applicant after Judgment.
10. The ancillary issue of urgency is also addressed to the limited extent necessary to explain why the application was heard during the Court vacation.
Analysis and Determination
Urgency
11. The application was presented against the background of the Applicant's stated intention to pursue appellate remedies following the Judgment delivered on 30th July 2026.
12. The Applicant contended that the matter required urgent attention because of the applicable timelines and the need to regularise her legal representation.
13. The Court also notes that the advocates who had represented the petitioner previosly, did not appear and 1st Interested Party did not oppose the Chamber Summons insofar as it sought that the matter be certified urgent and heard during the Court vacation.
14. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the application disclosed sufficient urgency to warrant its consideration during the Court recess.
Whether Leave Should be Granted to the Proposed Advocates to Come on Record
15. Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules regulates the manner in which a party may change advocates after Judgment has been passed.
16. The requirement for leave is important. It ensures the orderly conduct of proceedings after Judgment and protects the integrity of the court record. A change of advocates at that stage cannot ordinarily be effected casually or informally.
17. The courts have consistently emphasized the importance of compliance with Order 9 Rule 9. The Rule is not merely decorative or optional. It establishes the procedure through which representation after Judgment must be regularised.
18. The authorities placed before the Court, including Samuel M. Wang'ombe v Charles Muriithi Nyamu , Peter Musili Ngima v Mulyungi Mutie , and Gituro v Maki & 3 Others [2024] KECA 1204 (KLR) , underscore the importance of compliance with the procedural requirements governing changes of advocates after Judgment.
19. At the same time, the Court retains discretion to consider the circumstances of each case when determining whether leave should be granted.
20. The Applicant's explanation is that she wished to take further steps following the delivery of Judgment but encountered difficulties with her then advocates. She thereafter sought to appoint the firm of Munyithya, Mutugi, Umara & Muzna Co. Advocates .
21. The Respondents and the 1st Interested Party dispute that explanation. They contend that the Applicant had appeared in person on the date Judgment was delivered and that her conduct raises questions concerning the status of her representation at the material time.
22. There is therefore a factual dispute concerning the precise circumstances in which the relationship between the Applicant and her former advocates came to an end or became the subject of disagreement.
23. However, I do not consider it necessary, for purposes of determining the present application, to make definitive findings on every contested allegation concerning the relationship between the Applicant and her former advocates.
24. The immediate question is narrower: whether, having regard to the circumstances presently before the Court, the Applicant should be permitted to regularise her representation by appointing the advocates she has now chosen.
25. The right of a litigant to be represented by counsel of his or her choice is an important aspect of access to justice. That right must, of course, be exercised in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.
26. In Ngunda v Ready Consultancy Ltd [2022] KECA 577 (KLR) , the Court emphasized the responsibility of litigants to remain vigilant in the conduct of their cases. A litigant cannot invariably avoid the consequences of procedural failures merely by changing advocates.
27. That principle is applicable. However, it does not mean that a litigant who seeks to change advocates after Judgment must necessarily be denied leave where the circumstances justify the regularisation of representation.
28. In the present case, the Applicant has clearly and unequivocally expressed her desire to be represented by Munyithya, Mutugi, Umara & Muzna Co. Advocates. It is significant that the advocates previously on record are the very parties whose legitimate interests Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules was principally intended to protect. The mischief underlying those provisions is to prevent a party from circumventing or abandoning an advocate who has acted in the matter, particularly after judgment, without due notice and without addressing any outstanding professional obligations, including costs and fees. Order 9 was therefore not intended to operate as an instrument through which a litigant's clear choice of legal representation may be defeated or unnecessarily obstructed.
29. In this case, the previous advocates did not attend nor raise any issues and no sufficient basis has been demonstrated to persuade this Court that permitting the proposed firm to come on record would occasion substantive prejudice to the Respondents or the Interested Parties.
30. The concerns raised by the Respondents regarding the Applicant's previous representation and the procedural history of the matter are matters the Court has taken seriously. However, those concerns do not, in the circumstances of this application, justify permanently preventing the Applicant from being represented by counsel of her choice.
31. The justice of the matter is best served by granting leave and the subsequent steps to follow.
32. I therefore find that the Applicant has established sufficient grounds for the grant of leave under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Matters Not Determined in this Ruling
33. For avoidance of doubt, this Court deliberately makes no finding whatsoever in this Ruling regarding:
a. The validity, competence or legal effect of the Notice of Appeal allegedly filed on 13th August 2026;
b. The validity or effect of any Notice of Change of Advocates filed before the determination of this application;
c. Whether any document filed by the proposed advocates before leave was granted should be struck out, validated, regularised or otherwise dealt with;
d. The admissibility, authenticity, evidentiary value or compliance of any electronic communication or electronic document relied upon by the Applicant;
e. Compliance with Section 106B of the Evidence Act in relation to any electronic evidence;
f. Whether there was proper service of the letter dated 3rd August 2026 or any electronic communication;
g. Whether the Applicant's former advocates declined, refused or failed to act upon her instructions; or
h. Any question concerning the substantive merits of an intended appeal or the jurisdiction of any appellate court.
34. Those issues were raised in the affidavits and submissions before the Court. However, they are not necessary for the determination of the narrow question presently before this Court, namely, whether the Applicant should be permitted to change her advocates after Judgment.
35. Any party wishing to challenge any document filed in these proceedings or to raise questions concerning its competence, admissibility or legal effect shall be at liberty to do so through the appropriate procedure before the appropriate court.
36. Nothing in this Ruling should therefore be construed as validating, approving, striking out or otherwise determining the legal status of any document filed by the Applicant or her advocates before the delivery of this Ruling.
Costs
37. The application concerns the regularisation of the Applicant's representation after Judgment. Given the circumstances surrounding the application and the limited nature of the determination made herein, I consider it appropriate that costs be reserved.
Orders
38. Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders:
a. The application dated 12th August 2026 is certified as urgent and was properly heard during the Court vacation.
b. Leave is hereby granted to Munyithya, Mutugi, Umara & Muzna Co. Advocates to come on record for the Applicant after Judgment in accordance with Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
c. The said advocates shall file and serve the appropriate Notice of Change of Advocates in accordance with the applicable law and procedure.
d. For the avoidance of doubt, this Ruling is confined strictly to the issue of representation and the grant of leave to the proposed advocates to come on record.
e. The Court makes no finding regarding the validity, competence, admissibility, regularity or legal effect of any Notice of Appeal, Notice of Change of Advocates, electronic communication, electronic document or any other document referred to in the affidavits or submissions.
f. Any issue concerning the validity, admissibility, competence or legal effect of such documents remains open for determination through the appropriate procedure and, where applicable, before the appropriate court.
g. Costs of the application are reserved.
Final Observation
39. Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be complied with whenever an advocate seeks to come on record after Judgment.
40. At the same time, the purpose of the Rule is to ensure orderly and transparent representation before the Court. It should not, without sufficient cause, operate to permanently deprive a litigant of the opportunity to be represented by counsel of his or her choice.
41. In granting leave in the present case, this Court determines only the question of representation . All other contested issues raised by the parties remain open and are expressly reserved for determination in the appropriate proceedings.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS __8 th __ DAY OF ___September _______ 2026.
WENDY MICHENI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
BEBORA COURT ASSISTANT
NO APPERANCE BY THE PARTIES
RULING UPLOADED ONTO THE CTS
1. This Ruling determines the Notice of Motion dated 12th August 2026 in which the Applicant, Anne Muthoni Staudte , principally seeks leave to permit Munyithya, Mutugi, Umara & Muzna Co. Advocates to come on record for her after the delivery of Judgment on 30th July 2026.
2. The application is opposed by the 1st to 4th Respondents through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Linda C. Kitur on 27th August 2026 and by the 1st Interested Party through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Angulu Clyde on 27th August 2026 and oral submissions by counsel for the 6 th respondent.The 1st Interested Party does not oppose the Chamber Summons insofar as it seeks that the matter be certified urgent and heard during the Court vacation but opposes the substantive reliefs sought.
3. The firms of Perpetual Ndegwa and Co Advocates and Ongaro & Co advocates , who had represented the Petitioner previously were served as per the affidavit of Joseph Munyithia sworn on 28 th August 2026. They did not file any response and they did not appear during the hearing.
4. Having considered the nature of the application and the objections raised by the parties, I consider it important at the outset to delimit the scope of this Ruling. The issue presently before the Court is whether leave should be granted for the proposed advocates to come on record after Judgment . This Ruling does not determine the validity, competence, admissibility or legal effect of any Notice of Appeal, Notice of Change of Advocates, electronic communication or other document filed or relied upon by any party. Those issues, if properly raised, remain for determination in the appropriate proceedings.
Background
4. Judgment in this matter was delivered by this Court on 30th July 2026. The Applicant states that following the delivery of Judgment, she wished to pursue an appeal and instructed her then advocates to take the necessary steps. She avers that they declined or failed to act upon her instructions.
5. The Applicant thereafter appointed Munyithya, Mutugi, Umara & Muzna Co. Advocates and filed the present application on 12th August 2026, seeking leave for the said advocates to come on record after Judgment.
6. The Respondents and the 1st Interested Party dispute the Applicant's account. They contend, among other things, that the Applicant appeared in person when Judgment was delivered and that there had been changes in her representation without compliance with the provisions of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
7. They further contend that documents subsequently filed by the proposed advocates were filed before leave was obtained and are consequently irregular.
8. Those competing contentions provide the background against which the present application falls to be considered. However, as already stated, this Court confines itself in this Ruling to the question of representation.
Issue for Determination
9. The principal issue for determination is:
Whether leave should be granted under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules to permit Munyithya, Mutugi, Umara & Muzna Co. Advocates to come on record for the Applicant after Judgment.
10. The ancillary issue of urgency is also addressed to the limited extent necessary to explain why the application was heard during the Court vacation.
Analysis and Determination
Urgency
11. The application was presented against the background of the Applicant's stated intention to pursue appellate remedies following the Judgment delivered on 30th July 2026.
12. The Applicant contended that the matter required urgent attention because of the applicable timelines and the need to regularise her legal representation.
13. The Court also notes that the advocates who had represented the petitioner previosly, did not appear and 1st Interested Party did not oppose the Chamber Summons insofar as it sought that the matter be certified urgent and heard during the Court vacation.
14. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the application disclosed sufficient urgency to warrant its consideration during the Court recess.
Whether Leave Should be Granted to the Proposed Advocates to Come on Record
15. Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules regulates the manner in which a party may change advocates after Judgment has been passed.
16. The requirement for leave is important. It ensures the orderly conduct of proceedings after Judgment and protects the integrity of the court record. A change of advocates at that stage cannot ordinarily be effected casually or informally.
17. The courts have consistently emphasized the importance of compliance with Order 9 Rule 9. The Rule is not merely decorative or optional. It establishes the procedure through which representation after Judgment must be regularised.
18. The authorities placed before the Court, including Samuel M. Wang'ombe v Charles Muriithi Nyamu , Peter Musili Ngima v Mulyungi Mutie , and Gituro v Maki & 3 Others [2024] KECA 1204 (KLR) , underscore the importance of compliance with the procedural requirements governing changes of advocates after Judgment.
19. At the same time, the Court retains discretion to consider the circumstances of each case when determining whether leave should be granted.
20. The Applicant's explanation is that she wished to take further steps following the delivery of Judgment but encountered difficulties with her then advocates. She thereafter sought to appoint the firm of Munyithya, Mutugi, Umara & Muzna Co. Advocates .
21. The Respondents and the 1st Interested Party dispute that explanation. They contend that the Applicant had appeared in person on the date Judgment was delivered and that her conduct raises questions concerning the status of her representation at the material time.
22. There is therefore a factual dispute concerning the precise circumstances in which the relationship between the Applicant and her former advocates came to an end or became the subject of disagreement.
23. However, I do not consider it necessary, for purposes of determining the present application, to make definitive findings on every contested allegation concerning the relationship between the Applicant and her former advocates.
24. The immediate question is narrower: whether, having regard to the circumstances presently before the Court, the Applicant should be permitted to regularise her representation by appointing the advocates she has now chosen.
25. The right of a litigant to be represented by counsel of his or her choice is an important aspect of access to justice. That right must, of course, be exercised in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.
26. In Ngunda v Ready Consultancy Ltd [2022] KECA 577 (KLR) , the Court emphasized the responsibility of litigants to remain vigilant in the conduct of their cases. A litigant cannot invariably avoid the consequences of procedural failures merely by changing advocates.
27. That principle is applicable. However, it does not mean that a litigant who seeks to change advocates after Judgment must necessarily be denied leave where the circumstances justify the regularisation of representation.
28. In the present case, the Applicant has clearly and unequivocally expressed her desire to be represented by Munyithya, Mutugi, Umara & Muzna Co. Advocates. It is significant that the advocates previously on record are the very parties whose legitimate interests Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules was principally intended to protect. The mischief underlying those provisions is to prevent a party from circumventing or abandoning an advocate who has acted in the matter, particularly after judgment, without due notice and without addressing any outstanding professional obligations, including costs and fees. Order 9 was therefore not intended to operate as an instrument through which a litigant's clear choice of legal representation may be defeated or unnecessarily obstructed.
29. In this case, the previous advocates did not attend nor raise any issues and no sufficient basis has been demonstrated to persuade this Court that permitting the proposed firm to come on record would occasion substantive prejudice to the Respondents or the Interested Parties.
30. The concerns raised by the Respondents regarding the Applicant's previous representation and the procedural history of the matter are matters the Court has taken seriously. However, those concerns do not, in the circumstances of this application, justify permanently preventing the Applicant from being represented by counsel of her choice.
31. The justice of the matter is best served by granting leave and the subsequent steps to follow.
32. I therefore find that the Applicant has established sufficient grounds for the grant of leave under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Matters Not Determined in this Ruling
33. For avoidance of doubt, this Court deliberately makes no finding whatsoever in this Ruling regarding:
a. The validity, competence or legal effect of the Notice of Appeal allegedly filed on 13th August 2026;
b. The validity or effect of any Notice of Change of Advocates filed before the determination of this application;
c. Whether any document filed by the proposed advocates before leave was granted should be struck out, validated, regularised or otherwise dealt with;
d. The admissibility, authenticity, evidentiary value or compliance of any electronic communication or electronic document relied upon by the Applicant;
e. Compliance with Section 106B of the Evidence Act in relation to any electronic evidence;
f. Whether there was proper service of the letter dated 3rd August 2026 or any electronic communication;
g. Whether the Applicant's former advocates declined, refused or failed to act upon her instructions; or
h. Any question concerning the substantive merits of an intended appeal or the jurisdiction of any appellate court.
34. Those issues were raised in the affidavits and submissions before the Court. However, they are not necessary for the determination of the narrow question presently before this Court, namely, whether the Applicant should be permitted to change her advocates after Judgment.
35. Any party wishing to challenge any document filed in these proceedings or to raise questions concerning its competence, admissibility or legal effect shall be at liberty to do so through the appropriate procedure before the appropriate court.
36. Nothing in this Ruling should therefore be construed as validating, approving, striking out or otherwise determining the legal status of any document filed by the Applicant or her advocates before the delivery of this Ruling.
Costs
37. The application concerns the regularisation of the Applicant's representation after Judgment. Given the circumstances surrounding the application and the limited nature of the determination made herein, I consider it appropriate that costs be reserved.
Orders
38. Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders:
a. The application dated 12th August 2026 is certified as urgent and was properly heard during the Court vacation.
b. Leave is hereby granted to Munyithya, Mutugi, Umara & Muzna Co. Advocates to come on record for the Applicant after Judgment in accordance with Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
c. The said advocates shall file and serve the appropriate Notice of Change of Advocates in accordance with the applicable law and procedure.
d. For the avoidance of doubt, this Ruling is confined strictly to the issue of representation and the grant of leave to the proposed advocates to come on record.
e. The Court makes no finding regarding the validity, competence, admissibility, regularity or legal effect of any Notice of Appeal, Notice of Change of Advocates, electronic communication, electronic document or any other document referred to in the affidavits or submissions.
f. Any issue concerning the validity, admissibility, competence or legal effect of such documents remains open for determination through the appropriate procedure and, where applicable, before the appropriate court.
g. Costs of the application are reserved.
Final Observation
39. Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be complied with whenever an advocate seeks to come on record after Judgment.
40. At the same time, the purpose of the Rule is to ensure orderly and transparent representation before the Court. It should not, without sufficient cause, operate to permanently deprive a litigant of the opportunity to be represented by counsel of his or her choice.
41. In granting leave in the present case, this Court determines only the question of representation . All other contested issues raised by the parties remain open and are expressly reserved for determination in the appropriate proceedings.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS __8 th __ DAY OF ___September _______ 2026.
WENDY MICHENI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
BEBORA COURT ASSISTANT
NO APPERANCE BY THE PARTIES
RULING UPLOADED ONTO THE CTS