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

Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & 2 others (Petition 318 of 2012) [2013] KEHC 7103 (KLR) (19 March 2013) (Judgment)

[2013] KEHC 7103 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
7103
Citation
[2013] KEHC 7103 (KLR)
Decided
19 March 2013
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeConstitutionality ChallengePosturePetition for Constitutional ReviewCoramD.S. MAJAN, Khanna
Holding

The provisions of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 2012 amending the Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Act, the Law Society of Kenya Act and the Advocates Act are not inconsistent with the Constitution.

Facts

The Law Society of Kenya petitioned against the Statute Law Miscellaneous (Amendments) Act, 2012, which amended sections of the Advocates Act and the Law Society of Kenya Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the amendments are inconsistent with Articles 27, 41 and 261(4) and therefore null and void.
  2. Whether the amendments seek to introduce substantive amendments.
  3. Whether there was public participation as enshrined in Article 10(2) and Article 118.
  4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the prayers and relief sought.

Reasoning

The court found no basis to hold that there was no public participation in the formulation and enactment of the Act, and the petitioner did not demonstrate how the National Assembly failed to achieve public participation within constitutional parameters.

Outcome

The petition dated 12th July 2012 be and is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (4)
  • Statute Law Miscellaneous (Amendments) Act, 2012
  • Advocates Act
  • Law Society of Kenya Act
  • Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Act
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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case