REPUBLIC OF KENYA
DORIS NYAMBURA KARIUKI………………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
D.GATHECHA & 6 OTHERS ………………………DEFENDANT
RULING
By its application dated 31st October, 2000, the firm of Oraro and Rachier Advocates applies for leave of the court to cease acting for the 1st and 2nd applicants. Although the 1st and 2nd applicants appear to oppose the application, it is not clear to me on what basis they can do this. It is to be noted they have not filed any replying affidavit as required by order L.Rule 16 (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
What he says is that he terminated any legal relationship he may have had with the applicants as far as back as August 2000 and that the applicants acceded to such arrangements. The record shows that the firm of Rachier & Co. Advocates filed a Notice of Appointment of Advocates dated 1/8/2000 effectively taking over the conduct of this case on behalf of the 1st and 2nd defendant who were hitherto acting in person. In the one week between that date and the 17th of August 2000, bad blood seems to have developed between the firms and the 1st defendant as by a letter of this date, he accused the firm of acting contrary and in opposition to the defendant best interest and categorically warned the firm against “making any move or writing or moving the court in any way whatsoever
regarding this matter” The Defendant described the instructions fully frozen until further Notice. In the event the further notice never came.
This letter was promptly acknowledged by the firm by its letter dated 8th August 2000, asking the defendant to collect his files, subject to payment of the firms fees.
I am satisfied from the foregoing that a client advocate relationship did and still exists between the firm and the respondents/ defendants. As no judgment or decree has been obtained in this matter, and as the defendant did not take advantage of the provisions of Order III of the Rules which allow them to file a Notice of change of advocate (see order III Rule 12 (I) the firm was left with little option but to apply the same jurisdiction and make this application. I find the application well recited and the only way that the firm could have moved. The application dated 31/10/2000 is accordingly granted. I make no order as to costs.
C.K. NJAI
PRINCIPAL DEPUTY REGISTRAR
22/11/2000
Court: Ruling delivered
1st & 2nd Defendant Present
Mr. Macharia for Applicant
C.K. NJAI
PRINCIPAL DEPUTY REGISTRAR.
22/11/200