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

Republic v Disciplinary Tribunal of the Law Society of Kenya & another Ex-parte Bernard Muriuki Kanyiri [2018] KEHC 9508 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 9508 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
9508
Citation
[2018] KEHC 9508 (KLR)
Decided
27 September 2018
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureEx parte applicationCoramConstitution. Majanja, Gikonyo, KLR W. Korir, Kimondo, Mumbi Ngugi, Nyarangi
Holding

The court found that the delay in delivering the judgment did not vitiate the decision, and the orders sought were available to the applicant.

Facts

The applicant, Bernard Muriuki Kanyiri, sought judicial review of a decision by the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Law Society of Kenya, challenging the tribunal's decision to order him to pay over Kshs 5,520,000.

Issues

  1. Whether delay in delivery of the judgment vitiated the decision
  2. What is the effect of an undated and unsigned judgment or ruling by a tribunal/court
  3. Was the Respondent’s order on the sum payable was ultra vires or made without jurisdiction
  4. Whether the orders of Judicial Review sought are available to the exparte applicant
  5. What orders should the court make
  6. Who is to bear the costs of the application

Reasoning

The court considered whether the delay in delivering the judgment was prejudicial to the applicant's rights and whether the orders sought were available under the law.

Outcome

The court dismissed the application.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010
  • Advocates Act, Cap 16
  • Law Society of Kenya Act, Cap 18
Cases cited (4)
  • Coalition for Reform and Democracy & Another v Republic of Kenya & Another
  • Republic v Attorney General & Another Ex Parte Ngeny
  • Republic V Pc. George Okelo & Another
  • John Njoroge Chege v Director of Public Prosecutions
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