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

Republic v Disciplinary Committee & 2 others Ex-parte Christopher Auka Abele [2016] KEHC 4335 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 4335 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
4335
Citation
[2016] KEHC 4335 (KLR)
Decided
11 July 2016
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureEx parte application for judicial review
Holding

The Court denies the application for judicial review.

Facts

The applicant, Christopher Auka Abele, was convicted for failing to account to a client in the sum of Kshs 69,500 in 2013. The Disciplinary Committee made an order for attachment of one-third of his salary, but he opted for a standing order of Kshs 25,000 for 4 monthly payments. The Law Society of Kenya and the Attorney General denied receiving the standing order.

Issues

  1. Whether the decision to remove the case to the High Court for quashing is justified.
  2. Whether the respondents should have opted for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
  3. Whether the respondents have the jurisdiction to entertain complaints against the applicant in his professional capacity.

Reasoning

The applicant has not addressed the Court on any grounds warranting judicial review relief. The Court exercises discretion judicially, based on evidence and sound legal principles, and finds no illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the respondents' actions.

Outcome

The application for judicial review is dismissed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (4)
  • Law Reform Act (Cap 26)
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Advocates Act (Cap 16)
  • Constitution of Kenya
Cases cited (2)
  • Pastoli vs. Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300
  • An Application by Bukoba Gymkhana Club [1963] EA 478
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