Barnes Muema v Francis Masuni Kyangangu [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Case Brief: Barnes Muema v Francis Masuni Kyangangu [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Barnes Muema v. Francis Masuni Kyangangu
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2016
- Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: 23rd October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): A.K. Murgor, J.A.
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue in this case revolves around whether the law firm Messrs Kilonzo & Company Advocates should be granted leave to cease acting for the applicant, Barnes Muema, due to the lack of communication and instructions from the applicant.

3. Facts of the Case:
The applicant, Barnes Muema, is involved in an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Kenya delivered by J. Ngugi on 27th February 2012. The respondent in this matter is Francis Masuni Kyangangu. The application to cease representation was filed by the applicant’s advocates, who claimed they had not received instructions from the applicant despite several requests. The advocates noted that their inability to communicate with the applicant hindered their ability to prosecute the appeal effectively.

4. Procedural History:
The appeal was initially set for case management on 6th April 2017, where both parties were directed to file their submissions. However, the applicant failed to respond to multiple requests from his counsel for instructions. Consequently, on 18th June 2019, the advocates filed a Notice of Motion seeking permission to cease acting for the applicant. The application was supported by an affidavit from Kieti D. Ndolo, Advocate, reiterating their difficulties in obtaining instructions.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The application was made under Rule 23(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which governs the conduct of advocates in representing clients and the procedures for withdrawing from representation.
- Case Law: While the ruling does not specify previous cases, it implicitly relies on established principles regarding the obligations of advocates to their clients and the court's discretion in managing cases, particularly in ensuring that a party is not left without representation.
- Application: The court recognized the challenges faced by Messrs Kilonzo & Company Advocates due to the applicant's lack of communication. However, the court also highlighted the risk of the applicant becoming unrepresented if the advocates were allowed to withdraw. Therefore, the court decided to prioritize the hearing of the appeal and required the applicant to appear with his counsel to take charge of the case.

6. Conclusion:
The Court of Appeal denied the application for the advocates to cease acting for the applicant, instead prioritizing the hearing of the appeal and ordering the applicant to appear with his counsel. This ruling underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that parties have representation and that appeals are heard in a timely manner.

7. Dissent:
There are no dissenting opinions noted in this ruling. The decision appears to be unanimous in its approach to maintaining the applicant's representation while addressing the advocates' concerns.

8. Summary:
The case of Barnes Muema v. Francis Masuni Kyangangu highlights the complexities involved when an applicant fails to communicate with their legal representatives. The Court of Appeal's decision to deny the advocates' request to cease acting for the applicant emphasizes the importance of ensuring that parties remain represented during legal proceedings, particularly in civil appeals. This ruling may have broader implications for the responsibilities of both clients and advocates in maintaining effective communication throughout the legal process.