OKENYO OMWANSA GEORGE & another v ATTORNEY GENERAL & 2 others [2012] KEHC 5483 (KLR)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 5483
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 5483 (KLR)
- Decided
- 29 March 2012
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeConstitutional PetitionPostureAppeal from the High Court of Kenya at NairobiCoramD.S. MAJAN
Holding
Rule 2 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules is unconstitutional and inconsistent with Articles 46(1) and 48 of the Constitution.
Facts
The petitioners are advocates who were unable to start their own private practices due to the Advocates Act and its practice rules, which restrict advertising.
Issues
- Whether section 32 of the Advocates Act is unconstitutional
- Whether Rule 2 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules is inconsistent with Articles 46(1) and 48 of the Constitution
Reasoning
The court applied constitutional principles and interpreted the Advocates Act and practice rules to determine their constitutionality.
Outcome
The petition is allowed to the extent that Rule 2 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules is declared unconstitutional.
Orders
- Section 32 of the Advocates Act is not unconstitutional.
- Rule 2 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules is unconstitutional and inconsistent with Articles 46(1) and 48 of the Constitution.
Remedies
- Rule 2 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules is declared unconstitutional.
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Advocates Act
- Constitution of Kenya
Cases cited (3)
- Centre for Rights and Awareness & Others v Attorney General Nairobi Petition No. 16 of 2011 (Unreported)
- Harun Mwau v The Attorney General & Others Nairobi Petition No. 146 of 2011 (Unreported)
- Olum & Another v Attorney-General of Uganda [2002] 2 EA 508
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.
Loading judgment…