SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

John Maina Mburu v Disciplinary Tribunal of the Law Society of Kenya & another [2016] KECA 430 (KLR)

[2016] KECA 430 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
430
Citation
[2016] KECA 430 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureApplication for stay of execution pending the lodging, hearing and determination of an intended appealCoramE. M. Githinji, Alnashir Visram, M. S. A. Makhandia
Holding

The court finds that the applicant’s application is premature and that the best forum for raising the question of jurisdiction is before the tribunal hearing the matter after which the applicant can appeal or apply for judicial review of the decision.

Facts

The applicant, John Maina Mburu, filed a Judicial Review application in the High Court seeking an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Law Society of Kenya requiring him to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on 20th July 2015 to take plea on a complaint by John Francis Njomo. The complaint related to an agreement of sale of a house between Njomo and Tetezi Housing Limited, in which Mburu was a shareholder.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant’s application is premature.
  2. Whether the Disciplinary Tribunal has jurisdiction over the applicant as an advocate of the High Court of Kenya.

Reasoning

The court determined that there was no sufficient material before it to determine the question of jurisdiction and that the best forum for raising the question of jurisdiction was before the tribunal hearing the matter.

Outcome

The application for stay of execution pending the lodging, hearing and determination of an intended appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application for stay of execution pending the lodging, hearing and determination of an intended appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondents.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case