Rael Chepngetich Emaina v Chelule Arap Maina [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
D.O. Ohungo
Judgment Date
October 01, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
2
Explore the Rael Chepngetich Emaina v Chelule Arap Maina [2020] eKLR case summary, highlighting key legal principles and outcomes. Stay informed on this significant ruling in Kenyan law.


Case Brief: Rael Chepngetich Emaina v Chelule Arap Maina [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Rael Chepngetich Emaina v. Chelule Arap Maina & Zakayo Chesimet
- Case Number: Case No. 276 of 2013 (formerly HCCC No. 45 of 2009 (O.S))
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Date Delivered: 1st October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): D.O. Ohungo
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve whether the plaintiff can change her legal representation post-judgment and whether she can seek leave to appeal against the judgment out of time.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff, Rael Chepngetich Emaina, initiated this case against the defendants, Chelule Arap Maina and Zakayo Chesimet. Following the delivery of a judgment on 18th June 2020, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion on 17th July 2020. In her application, she sought to allow the firm of Raydon Mwangi and Associates to represent her post-judgment, and she requested leave to appeal the judgment out of time. The plaintiff explained that due to her status as a senior citizen and vulnerability to COVID-19, she was unable to meet her previous counsel until July 15, 2020.

4. Procedural History:
The plaintiff's application was unopposed as the defendants neither attended the hearing nor filed a response. The court considered the application based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff, including her affidavit detailing her circumstances. The court also noted the procedural requirements under the Civil Procedure Rules regarding changes in legal representation after judgment.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court referenced Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which states that a change of advocate post-judgment must be authorized by the court. The court also discussed Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, which allows for the extension of time for actions prescribed by the Act, though it noted that the jurisdiction for appeals lies with the Court of Appeal under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010.
- Case Law: The court did not cite any specific previous cases but relied on established procedural rules regarding changes in representation and the timelines for filing appeals.
- Application: The court concluded that the plaintiff had the right to change her advocate post-judgment. However, it determined that it lacked jurisdiction to grant leave for an out-of-time appeal, directing the plaintiff to seek such leave from the Court of Appeal instead.

6. Conclusion:
The court allowed the firm of Raydon Mwangi and Associates to represent the plaintiff, mandating them to file a Notice of Change of Advocates within 14 days. However, it dismissed the request for leave to appeal out of time, emphasizing that such jurisdiction lies with the Court of Appeal.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The ruling clarified the procedural rights of parties in civil cases regarding changes in legal representation and the limitations on seeking appeals out of time. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules while also acknowledging the rights of individuals to choose their legal representation, particularly in light of the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The case highlights the procedural complexities in civil litigation and the need for parties to act promptly within the prescribed timelines.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Rael-Chepngetich-Emaina-v-Chelule-Arap-Maina-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1185_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries