KENYA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED VS KIBII ARAP BIEGO AND EMILY CHEPTOO MELI AND 13 Others

1. By the Chamber Summons application dated 21^st July 2025, the firm of Betty Koech and Company Advocates for the 2^nd to 8^th defendants and 10th, 11th. 13^th, 14^th 16^th to 19^th defendants, is seeking the orders thus;  (a) That the firm of Betty Koech and Company Advocates be allowed to cease acting for the 2^nd, 3^rd, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th and 8^th defendants.  (b) That costs of the application be provided for.
2. The application is based on the affidavit 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.

3. The respondents/defendants in the application were duly served with the application as disclosed in the affidavit of service sworn on 22^nd July 2025. However, the 5^th and 6^th respondents are absent for inter partes hearing of the application.

4. Ms Betty Koech has sought to have the application allowed against the 5^th and 6^th respondents only as the other respondents’ intention is to give her further instructions in the matter.

5. So, is there merit in the instant application?

6. 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.

7. Notably, in the case of Delphis Bank Limited-vs-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..............’

8. Besides, the instant application reveals that the 5^th and 6^th 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.

9. The upshot of the foregoing is that the chamber summons dated 21^st July 2025 is merited against the 5^th and 6^th respondents and the same is hereby allowed in terms of order NO. 2 sought therein as stated in paragraph 1 (a) hereinabove against the 5^th and 6^th defendants/respondents only.

10. The 5^th and 6^th respondents are at liberty to engage another counsel or re-engage Betty Koech and Company Advocates or act in person.

11. Given the nature of the application, there shall be no orders as to costs.

12. It is so ordered

DATED and DELIVERED at KAPSABET this 23^rd July 2025

G M A ONGONDO

JUDGE

PRESENT

Mr Mbugua learned counsel for the plaintiff

Ms Koech learned counsel for the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th to 8^th defendants and 10th, 11^th, 13^th, 14^th, 16^th to 19^th defendants

Mr Rotich learned counsel for the 20th defendant

Walter, court assistant