Applicant’s case:
1. The Appellant raised an objection around the issue of representation of The Respondent arguing that during the trial, the Respondent was represented by the firm of Maura, Muthoni, Mikhala, Faraji & Associate which firm was replaced unprocedurally as the matter was escalated to this court.
2. According to the Appellant, at the appeal level ,the firm of T.O. Odhiambo & Company Advocates came on record by filing and serving a Notice of Appointment of Advocates on August 15, 2025, along with a Notice of Change of Advocates and submissions replacing the earlier law firm.
3. It is the appellant’s case that since no consent was filed from the previous advocate, nor was leave granted to come on record to represent the respondent, as is required by Order 9, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, then the Respondents' submissions should be expunged from the record.
The Respondent's case;
4. The Respondent is of a different view.Reliance is placed in The Court of Appeal in Ngitimbe v. Nyamongo & Another [2019] eKLR
“affirmed that an appeal is an independent proceeding and that Order 9 Rule 9 does not restrict a litigant’s choice of counsel at the appellate level.”
5. It argues that the right to counsel of one’s choice is a constitutional right.
Analysis and determination;
6. In the case of Norman Tractor & Farm Equipment Limited -us- Charles Okumu Arunda [2021]eKLR the court relied on Tobias M. Wafubwa-vs-Ben Butali 2017(eKLR) where the Court of Appeal held that:-
As this dispute concerns an appeal from the Chief Magistrates Court to the High Court, it involves the commencement of new proceedings and I am satisfied the applicant's counsel was entitled to commence proceedings without seeking a change of advocates or seeking leave to be placed on record of the Court.
7. Similarly in this case it is my finding that there was no need to seek leave to come on record and to file Submissions on the part of the Respondent.
8. The appellant does not demonstrate how it suffered prejudice by the Respondent’s counsel coming on record and filing by submissions in the manner that it deed.
Determination;
9. The Appellant’s objection lacks merit.
Order;
The objection is dismissed.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 14th Day of January , 2026.
1. The Appellant raised an objection around the issue of representation of The Respondent arguing that during the trial, the Respondent was represented by the firm of Maura, Muthoni, Mikhala, Faraji & Associate which firm was replaced unprocedurally as the matter was escalated to this court.
2. According to the Appellant, at the appeal level ,the firm of T.O. Odhiambo & Company Advocates came on record by filing and serving a Notice of Appointment of Advocates on August 15, 2025, along with a Notice of Change of Advocates and submissions replacing the earlier law firm.
3. It is the appellant’s case that since no consent was filed from the previous advocate, nor was leave granted to come on record to represent the respondent, as is required by Order 9, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, then the Respondents' submissions should be expunged from the record.
The Respondent's case;
4. The Respondent is of a different view.Reliance is placed in The Court of Appeal in Ngitimbe v. Nyamongo & Another [2019] eKLR
“affirmed that an appeal is an independent proceeding and that Order 9 Rule 9 does not restrict a litigant’s choice of counsel at the appellate level.”
5. It argues that the right to counsel of one’s choice is a constitutional right.
Analysis and determination;
6. In the case of Norman Tractor & Farm Equipment Limited -us- Charles Okumu Arunda [2021]eKLR the court relied on Tobias M. Wafubwa-vs-Ben Butali 2017(eKLR) where the Court of Appeal held that:-
As this dispute concerns an appeal from the Chief Magistrates Court to the High Court, it involves the commencement of new proceedings and I am satisfied the applicant's counsel was entitled to commence proceedings without seeking a change of advocates or seeking leave to be placed on record of the Court.
7. Similarly in this case it is my finding that there was no need to seek leave to come on record and to file Submissions on the part of the Respondent.
8. The appellant does not demonstrate how it suffered prejudice by the Respondent’s counsel coming on record and filing by submissions in the manner that it deed.
Determination;
9. The Appellant’s objection lacks merit.
Order;
The objection is dismissed.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 14th Day of January , 2026.