1. Before the Court is the Notice of Motion dated 9th July 2026 filed by the firm of Chemwok & Company Advocates. The firm seeks orders that:
a) That the Plaintiff herein has completely failed, refused and/or neglected to communicate with his/her advocates on record for a prolonged period.
b) That despite numerous attempts to reach the Plaintiff through telephone calls, emails, and written correspondence, the Plaintiff has not responded or provided instructions regarding the conduct of this matter.
c) That this matter is scheduled for summons for confirmation on 02/3/2026, and it is imperative that Advocate’s position on record be regularized before further proceedings.
d) That unless this Honourable Court grants leave to the Advocate to cease acting, the Advocate will continue to be exposed to professional and legal prejudice.
e) That it is in the interest of justice that this application be heard urgently.
2. The application is expressed to be brought under Order 9 rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and all other enabling provisions of the law. It is supported by the affidavit of Mr Michael K. Chemwok, Advocate.
Grounds of the application
3. The applicant’s case is that the petitioner instructed the firm to represent him in these proceedings and the firm duly came on record. However, since about the year 2025, the petitioner has failed, refused or neglected to communicate with the firm or provide instructions on the further conduct of the succession cause.
4. Mr Chemwok deposes that repeated attempts to reach the petitioner have been unsuccessful. Consequently, the firm is unable to represent him effectively and the advocate-client relationship has irretrievably broken down.
5. The affidavit of service shows that on 15th July 2026, the application and the mention notice for 23rd July 2026 were transmitted to the petitioner through WhatsApp number 0711 828 885 at 4:42 p.m.
6. The annexed electronic transmission record identifies the recipient as “Simon Chebet,” displays the attached documents and indicates, through the two blue ticks, that the message was delivered and read. The petitioner did not file any response or otherwise contest the application.
7. The affidavit of service was sworn by Mr Michael K. Chemwok, the advocate having conduct of the matter who explains that the electronic transmission was effected by his clerk pursuant to his instructions. The annexed contemporaneous transmission record sufficiently corroborates the account given in the affidavit.
8. In the present matter, the application was transmitted to the petitioner’s telephone number and the accompanying electronic record shows that they were delivered and read. The petitioner has not disputed the number, challenged the service or responded to the allegations made by his advocates. I am therefore satisfied that he received sufficient notice of the application.
9. The absence of opposition does not automatically entitle an applicant to the orders sought. The Court must nevertheless consider whether the application has a legal and factual foundation. In this case, the evidence that the petitioner has failed to communicate with his advocates or provide instructions since 2025 remains uncontroverted.
10. Effective legal representation requires communication, confidence and instructions between the advocate and the client. Where a client has ceased communicating and no longer provides instructions, the advocate cannot reasonably be expected to continue bearing professional responsibility for the conduct of the proceedings.
11. In Mbugua Ng’ang’a & Company Advocates v Attorney General & another, Supreme Court Petition (Application) No. E033 of 2023, the Supreme Court stated that a court cannot compel counsel to continue acting for a party who has lost touch or interest in the matter. That principle is applicable here.
12. I am consequently satisfied that the advocate-client relationship has broken down and that there is sufficient cause to permit the applicant firm to withdraw. Appropriate directions must, however, be made to ensure that the withdrawal does not result in uncertainty regarding service or unnecessarily delay the administration of the estate.
Order:
13. The Notice of Motion dated 10th July 2026 is meritorious and is allowed in the following terms:
a) The firm of Chemwok & Company Advocates is granted leave to cease acting for Simeon Kipkorir Chebet, the petitioner.
b) Mention for further directions on 2/11/2026.
c) The Deputy Registrar to issue notice.
a) That the Plaintiff herein has completely failed, refused and/or neglected to communicate with his/her advocates on record for a prolonged period.
b) That despite numerous attempts to reach the Plaintiff through telephone calls, emails, and written correspondence, the Plaintiff has not responded or provided instructions regarding the conduct of this matter.
c) That this matter is scheduled for summons for confirmation on 02/3/2026, and it is imperative that Advocate’s position on record be regularized before further proceedings.
d) That unless this Honourable Court grants leave to the Advocate to cease acting, the Advocate will continue to be exposed to professional and legal prejudice.
e) That it is in the interest of justice that this application be heard urgently.
2. The application is expressed to be brought under Order 9 rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and all other enabling provisions of the law. It is supported by the affidavit of Mr Michael K. Chemwok, Advocate.
Grounds of the application
3. The applicant’s case is that the petitioner instructed the firm to represent him in these proceedings and the firm duly came on record. However, since about the year 2025, the petitioner has failed, refused or neglected to communicate with the firm or provide instructions on the further conduct of the succession cause.
4. Mr Chemwok deposes that repeated attempts to reach the petitioner have been unsuccessful. Consequently, the firm is unable to represent him effectively and the advocate-client relationship has irretrievably broken down.
5. The affidavit of service shows that on 15th July 2026, the application and the mention notice for 23rd July 2026 were transmitted to the petitioner through WhatsApp number 0711 828 885 at 4:42 p.m.
6. The annexed electronic transmission record identifies the recipient as “Simon Chebet,” displays the attached documents and indicates, through the two blue ticks, that the message was delivered and read. The petitioner did not file any response or otherwise contest the application.
7. The affidavit of service was sworn by Mr Michael K. Chemwok, the advocate having conduct of the matter who explains that the electronic transmission was effected by his clerk pursuant to his instructions. The annexed contemporaneous transmission record sufficiently corroborates the account given in the affidavit.
8. In the present matter, the application was transmitted to the petitioner’s telephone number and the accompanying electronic record shows that they were delivered and read. The petitioner has not disputed the number, challenged the service or responded to the allegations made by his advocates. I am therefore satisfied that he received sufficient notice of the application.
9. The absence of opposition does not automatically entitle an applicant to the orders sought. The Court must nevertheless consider whether the application has a legal and factual foundation. In this case, the evidence that the petitioner has failed to communicate with his advocates or provide instructions since 2025 remains uncontroverted.
10. Effective legal representation requires communication, confidence and instructions between the advocate and the client. Where a client has ceased communicating and no longer provides instructions, the advocate cannot reasonably be expected to continue bearing professional responsibility for the conduct of the proceedings.
11. In Mbugua Ng’ang’a & Company Advocates v Attorney General & another, Supreme Court Petition (Application) No. E033 of 2023, the Supreme Court stated that a court cannot compel counsel to continue acting for a party who has lost touch or interest in the matter. That principle is applicable here.
12. I am consequently satisfied that the advocate-client relationship has broken down and that there is sufficient cause to permit the applicant firm to withdraw. Appropriate directions must, however, be made to ensure that the withdrawal does not result in uncertainty regarding service or unnecessarily delay the administration of the estate.
Order:
13. The Notice of Motion dated 10th July 2026 is meritorious and is allowed in the following terms:
a) The firm of Chemwok & Company Advocates is granted leave to cease acting for Simeon Kipkorir Chebet, the petitioner.
b) Mention for further directions on 2/11/2026.
c) The Deputy Registrar to issue notice.