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

Republic v Disciplinary Committee & Paul Musili Wambua Ex parte John Katiku (Judicial Review Application 426 of 2018) [2019] KEHC 4783 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (29 July 2019) (Judgment)

[2019] KEHC 4783 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
4783
Citation
[2019] KEHC 4783 (KLR)
Decided
29 July 2019
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureAppeal from a decision of the Disciplinary CommitteeCoramMichael Daud & Associates, Nyawira Milimu and Omotto Advocates, M.M. Gitonga Advocates
Holding

The court finds that the Applicant's application is not properly before the court and that the Disciplinary Committee did not make an error in law. The Applicant is not entitled to the reliefs sought.

Facts

The Applicant, John Katiku, was an advocate who filed a complaint against his former partner, Prof. Paul Musili Wambua, with the Law Society of Kenya Disciplinary Committee. Wambua had issued notices of retirement and made allegations against Katiku.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant's application is properly before the court
  2. Whether the Disciplinary Committee made an error in law in its ruling
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought

Reasoning

The court determines that the Applicant is not an advocate for the purposes of the judicial review application and that the instant proceedings are not properly instituted. The court also finds that the Applicant did not exhaust alternative remedies as required by law.

Outcome

The application is dismissed

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Advocates Act
  • Fair Administrative Action Act
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Cases cited (2)
  • Geoffrey Muthinja Kabiru & 2 Others v Samuel Munga Henry & 1756 Others [2015] e KLR
  • Speaker of National Assembly v Karume (1992) KLR 21
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