Wangui Kathryn Kimani v Disciplinary Tribunal of the Law Society of Kenya & another [2016] KEHC 6341 (KLR)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 6341
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 6341 (KLR)
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureApplication for Leave to Apply for Orders of Certiorari and ProhibitionCoramMegarry, Nyamu, Oguk, Onyancha, Rosemary Jaja Mbogo
Holding
The court granted leave to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition.
Facts
The applicant, Wangui Kathryn Kimani, an advocate of the High Court of Kenya, sought leave to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition against the Law Society of Kenya Disciplinary Tribunal's decision in cause No. 137 of 2014.
Issues
- Procedural ultra vires in the issuance of the notice
- Unqualified person signing the judgment
- Tribunal's consideration of extraneous matters
- Tribunal's bias and acting in bad faith
Reasoning
The court explained the requirements for leave to apply for judicial review, emphasizing that it should exclude frivolous, vexatious, or hopeless applications.
Outcome
Leave granted
Orders
- Leave to apply for an order of certiorari to remove the decision from the court and quash it
- Prohibition against the Law Society of Kenya Disciplinary Tribunal from proceeding with sentencing scheduled for 18th April 2016
Remedies
- Stay of execution of the decision pending the hearing and determination of the proceedings
Authorities cited
Legislation (3)
- Advocates Act, Cap 16 of the Laws of Kenya
- Law Reform Act, Cap 26 of the Laws of Kenya
- Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 of the Laws of Kenya
Cases cited (3)
- Matiba vs. Attorney General Nairobi H.C. Misc. Application No. 790 of 1993
- Republic vs. Land Disputes Tribunal Court Central Division and Another Ex Parte Nzioka [2006] 1 EA 321
- Republic vs. County Council of Kwale & Another Ex Parte Kondo & 57 Others Mombasa HCMCA No. 384 of 1996
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…