This ruling is in respect of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated 3rd February. 2026 which seeks the following orders:
a. Spent
b. THAT the Firm of CM Advocates LLP be granted leave to come on record for the Plaintiff/Applicant KARIM MOHAMED HASSANALI in place of Ndegwa, Sitonik & Karina Advocates.
c. THAT each party to bear its own costs.
The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Karim Mohamed HassanAli sworn on 3rd February, 2026. He deponed that his relationship with his former advocates has broken down necessitating this application in order to accord him the right to counsel. The applicant deponed that the payment of fees should not hinder the issuance of the orders being sought in this application since his outgoing advocates have filed an advocate-client bill of costs in Mombasa ELC Land Misc, Civil Application No E006 of 2026 Wamuti Ndegwa and Simon Karina T/A Ndegwa, Sitonik & Karina Advocates vs Karim Mohamed Hassanali to which the aspect of fees will be determined. The applicant asked the court to grant the orders sought.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
Counsel seeking to come on record for the Applicant filed submissions dated 23rd February, 2026 and identified the issue for determination as: whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements of Order 9 Rule 9 to warrant leave to change advocates post-judgment. Counsel submitted that the Applicant has complied with Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Counsel relied on Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya and submitted that the right to change advocates and to be represented by counsel of one’s choice and he cannot be subjected to prior payment of fees, particularly where such fees have not been fully ascertained through taxation or remain contested. Counsel submitted that substantial sums exceeding Ksh7,800,000/= were paid by the Applicant to the former advocates during the subsistence of the retainer. Counsel submitted that this clearly demonstrates that the Applicant did not retain counsel without payment.
Counsel submitted that the advocate-client Bill of Costs is presently under taxation and the existence of independent legal avenues for the former advocates to pursue any fees properly taxed in their favour demonstrates that there is no legal justification for fettering the Applicant’s right to representation. Counsel relied on the cases of Lalji Bjimji Sanghani Builders & Contractors vs City Council of Nairobi [2012] eKLR, S.K Tarwadi vs Veronica Muehlemann [2019] eKLR, Delphis Bank Ltd vs Channan Singh Chatthe & 6 others [2005] eKLR, Serah Njeri Mwobi vs John Kimani Njoroge [2013] eKLR, Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates vs Deposit Protection Fund Board [2005] eKLR and King Woolen Mills Ltd & another vs Kaplan & Stratton Advocates [1993] eKLR. Counsel asked the court to grant the orders sought.
PLAINTIFF’S ADVOCATE’S SUBMISSIONS
Counsel for the Plaintiff on record filed submissions dated 4th March, 2026 and identified the following issues for determination:
a. Whether granting applicant leave to change an advocate after judgment before settling fees will defeat the objective of Order 9 (9) of the Civil Procedure Rules?
b. Whether there is a genuine dispute on the amount of legal fee due from the Applicant to the advocate?
c. How should the court protect the interest of the co-owner of the suit property/decretal amount?
On the first issue, counsel submitted that granting the orders sought will defeat the objective of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Counsel submitted that granting the orders sought will enable the applicant to receive the taxed party and party costs amounting to Ksh 47,802,276.67/= without paying the advocate. Counsel relied on the cases of Mary Wangari Ndungu vs James Mwaura Njoki KEHC 5299 (KLR), Ngitimbe Hudson Nyanumba vs Thomas Ongundo ELC Kisii Appeal No 97 of 2015 and S.K Tatardi vs Veronica Muehlmann [2019] eKLR.
On the second issue, counsel submitted that there is no genuine dispute on the amount due in legal fees. Counsel submitted that in this case, the party and party costs were taxed on 18th June, 2025 at Ksh 47,802,276.67/= and the certificate of costs which was on record was issued on 23rd June, 2025 for Ksh 47,802,276.67/=. Counsel submitted that the Respondent’s advocate is only asking for the taxed party and party costs plus one half and V.A.T.
On the third issue, counsel submitted that Mr. Amin stands in the position of an interested party. Counsel submitted that the presence of Mr. Amin (the non-party) is necessary to enable the court determine how best to protect his interest. Counsel urged the court to summon the Interested Part to appear before the Court.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
The issue for determination is whether the Notice of Motion application dated 3rd February. 2026 is merited. The regulatory legal framework on change of advocates post-judgment is contained in Order 9 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides as follows:
“When there is a change of advocate, or when a party decides to act in person having previously engaged an advocate, after judgment has been passed, such change or intention to act in person shall not be effected without an order of the court—
(a) upon an application with notice to all the parties; or
(b) upon a consent filed between the outgoing advocate and the proposed incoming advocate or party intending to act in person as the case may be.”
There are two ways in which a party to a suit may effect a change of advocates post-judgment. One is through an application filed in the suit and served on all the parties. The second is by filing a consent executed by the outgoing advocates and the incoming advocates. The two methods require that an order of the court be procured.
The applicant herein deponed in the affidavit supporting the Notice of Motion application that he instructed the firm of CM Advocates LLP to come on record in this matter post judgment in place of Ndegwa, Sitonik & Karina Advocates. He deponed that the firm of CM Advocates LLP sought consent to come on record from his outgoing advocates which consent was not given.
The applicant informed this court that the payment of fees should not hinder the issuance of the orders being sought in this application since his outgoing advocates have filed an advocate-client Bill of Costs in Mombasa ELC Land Misc Civil Application No. E006 of 2026 Wamuti Ndegwa and Simon Karina T/A Ndegwa, Sitonik & Karina Advocates vs Karim Mohamed Hassanali to which the aspect of fees will be determined. The same has been attached to the application and marked KM3.
The Plaintiff’s counsel on record informed the court that granting the orders sought will defeat the objective of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Counsel submitted that granting the orders sought will enable the applicant to receive the taxed party and party costs amounting to Ksh 47,802,276.67/= without paying the advocate.
In the case of Stephen Mwangi Kimote v Murata Sacco Society [2018] eKLR, the Court observed that:
"Order 9 does not impede the right of a party to be represented by an Advocate of his choice. It only provides rules to impose orderliness in civil proceedings. Any change of Advocate should comply with the rules. Chaos would reign if parties can change Advocates at will without notifying the Court and the other parties.”
In the case of S. K. Tarwadi vs Veronica Muehlmann [2019] eKLR, it was held that:
“…In my view, the essence of the Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPR was to protect advocates from the mischievous clients who will wait until a judgment is delivered and then sack the advocate and either replace him….”
The firm of CM Advocates LLP have a right to seek leave to come on record for the Plaintiff as stipulated under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. To my mind, there are two issues that are being contended by the counsel’s herein; one is the advocate-client bill of costs and the second is in respect of the party and party costs. Considering the firm of Wamuti Ndegwa and Simon Karina T/A Ndegwa, Sitonik & Karina Advocates has filed an advocate-client Bill of Costs in Mombasa ELC Land Misc Civil Application No. E006 of 2026, I see no reason not to allow the firm of CM Advocates LLP to come on record for the Plaintiff. I therefore issue the following orders:
a. The Firm of CM Advocates LLP is hereby granted leave to come on record for the Plaintiff/Applicant KARIM MOHAMED HASSANALI in place of Ndegwa, Sitonik & Karina Advocates.
b. Each party shall bear their own costs
a. Spent
b. THAT the Firm of CM Advocates LLP be granted leave to come on record for the Plaintiff/Applicant KARIM MOHAMED HASSANALI in place of Ndegwa, Sitonik & Karina Advocates.
c. THAT each party to bear its own costs.
The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Karim Mohamed HassanAli sworn on 3rd February, 2026. He deponed that his relationship with his former advocates has broken down necessitating this application in order to accord him the right to counsel. The applicant deponed that the payment of fees should not hinder the issuance of the orders being sought in this application since his outgoing advocates have filed an advocate-client bill of costs in Mombasa ELC Land Misc, Civil Application No E006 of 2026 Wamuti Ndegwa and Simon Karina T/A Ndegwa, Sitonik & Karina Advocates vs Karim Mohamed Hassanali to which the aspect of fees will be determined. The applicant asked the court to grant the orders sought.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
Counsel seeking to come on record for the Applicant filed submissions dated 23rd February, 2026 and identified the issue for determination as: whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements of Order 9 Rule 9 to warrant leave to change advocates post-judgment. Counsel submitted that the Applicant has complied with Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Counsel relied on Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya and submitted that the right to change advocates and to be represented by counsel of one’s choice and he cannot be subjected to prior payment of fees, particularly where such fees have not been fully ascertained through taxation or remain contested. Counsel submitted that substantial sums exceeding Ksh7,800,000/= were paid by the Applicant to the former advocates during the subsistence of the retainer. Counsel submitted that this clearly demonstrates that the Applicant did not retain counsel without payment.
Counsel submitted that the advocate-client Bill of Costs is presently under taxation and the existence of independent legal avenues for the former advocates to pursue any fees properly taxed in their favour demonstrates that there is no legal justification for fettering the Applicant’s right to representation. Counsel relied on the cases of Lalji Bjimji Sanghani Builders & Contractors vs City Council of Nairobi [2012] eKLR, S.K Tarwadi vs Veronica Muehlemann [2019] eKLR, Delphis Bank Ltd vs Channan Singh Chatthe & 6 others [2005] eKLR, Serah Njeri Mwobi vs John Kimani Njoroge [2013] eKLR, Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates vs Deposit Protection Fund Board [2005] eKLR and King Woolen Mills Ltd & another vs Kaplan & Stratton Advocates [1993] eKLR. Counsel asked the court to grant the orders sought.
PLAINTIFF’S ADVOCATE’S SUBMISSIONS
Counsel for the Plaintiff on record filed submissions dated 4th March, 2026 and identified the following issues for determination:
a. Whether granting applicant leave to change an advocate after judgment before settling fees will defeat the objective of Order 9 (9) of the Civil Procedure Rules?
b. Whether there is a genuine dispute on the amount of legal fee due from the Applicant to the advocate?
c. How should the court protect the interest of the co-owner of the suit property/decretal amount?
On the first issue, counsel submitted that granting the orders sought will defeat the objective of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Counsel submitted that granting the orders sought will enable the applicant to receive the taxed party and party costs amounting to Ksh 47,802,276.67/= without paying the advocate. Counsel relied on the cases of Mary Wangari Ndungu vs James Mwaura Njoki KEHC 5299 (KLR), Ngitimbe Hudson Nyanumba vs Thomas Ongundo ELC Kisii Appeal No 97 of 2015 and S.K Tatardi vs Veronica Muehlmann [2019] eKLR.
On the second issue, counsel submitted that there is no genuine dispute on the amount due in legal fees. Counsel submitted that in this case, the party and party costs were taxed on 18th June, 2025 at Ksh 47,802,276.67/= and the certificate of costs which was on record was issued on 23rd June, 2025 for Ksh 47,802,276.67/=. Counsel submitted that the Respondent’s advocate is only asking for the taxed party and party costs plus one half and V.A.T.
On the third issue, counsel submitted that Mr. Amin stands in the position of an interested party. Counsel submitted that the presence of Mr. Amin (the non-party) is necessary to enable the court determine how best to protect his interest. Counsel urged the court to summon the Interested Part to appear before the Court.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
The issue for determination is whether the Notice of Motion application dated 3rd February. 2026 is merited. The regulatory legal framework on change of advocates post-judgment is contained in Order 9 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides as follows:
“When there is a change of advocate, or when a party decides to act in person having previously engaged an advocate, after judgment has been passed, such change or intention to act in person shall not be effected without an order of the court—
(a) upon an application with notice to all the parties; or
(b) upon a consent filed between the outgoing advocate and the proposed incoming advocate or party intending to act in person as the case may be.”
There are two ways in which a party to a suit may effect a change of advocates post-judgment. One is through an application filed in the suit and served on all the parties. The second is by filing a consent executed by the outgoing advocates and the incoming advocates. The two methods require that an order of the court be procured.
The applicant herein deponed in the affidavit supporting the Notice of Motion application that he instructed the firm of CM Advocates LLP to come on record in this matter post judgment in place of Ndegwa, Sitonik & Karina Advocates. He deponed that the firm of CM Advocates LLP sought consent to come on record from his outgoing advocates which consent was not given.
The applicant informed this court that the payment of fees should not hinder the issuance of the orders being sought in this application since his outgoing advocates have filed an advocate-client Bill of Costs in Mombasa ELC Land Misc Civil Application No. E006 of 2026 Wamuti Ndegwa and Simon Karina T/A Ndegwa, Sitonik & Karina Advocates vs Karim Mohamed Hassanali to which the aspect of fees will be determined. The same has been attached to the application and marked KM3.
The Plaintiff’s counsel on record informed the court that granting the orders sought will defeat the objective of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Counsel submitted that granting the orders sought will enable the applicant to receive the taxed party and party costs amounting to Ksh 47,802,276.67/= without paying the advocate.
In the case of Stephen Mwangi Kimote v Murata Sacco Society [2018] eKLR, the Court observed that:
"Order 9 does not impede the right of a party to be represented by an Advocate of his choice. It only provides rules to impose orderliness in civil proceedings. Any change of Advocate should comply with the rules. Chaos would reign if parties can change Advocates at will without notifying the Court and the other parties.”
In the case of S. K. Tarwadi vs Veronica Muehlmann [2019] eKLR, it was held that:
“…In my view, the essence of the Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPR was to protect advocates from the mischievous clients who will wait until a judgment is delivered and then sack the advocate and either replace him….”
The firm of CM Advocates LLP have a right to seek leave to come on record for the Plaintiff as stipulated under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. To my mind, there are two issues that are being contended by the counsel’s herein; one is the advocate-client bill of costs and the second is in respect of the party and party costs. Considering the firm of Wamuti Ndegwa and Simon Karina T/A Ndegwa, Sitonik & Karina Advocates has filed an advocate-client Bill of Costs in Mombasa ELC Land Misc Civil Application No. E006 of 2026, I see no reason not to allow the firm of CM Advocates LLP to come on record for the Plaintiff. I therefore issue the following orders:
a. The Firm of CM Advocates LLP is hereby granted leave to come on record for the Plaintiff/Applicant KARIM MOHAMED HASSANALI in place of Ndegwa, Sitonik & Karina Advocates.
b. Each party shall bear their own costs