Republic v Paul Kihara Kariuki, Attorney General & 2 others Ex parte Law Society of Kenya [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Judicial Review Division
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
John M. Mativo
Judgment Date
October 08, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Republic v Paul Kihara Kariuki, Attorney General & 2 others Ex parte Law Society of Kenya [2020] eKLR. Discover key legal insights and implications in this landmark decision.

Case Brief: Republic v Paul Kihara Kariuki, Attorney General & 2 others Ex parte Law Society of Kenya [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Republic v. Paul Kihara Kariuki, Attorney General & 2 Others
- Case Number: HCJR/E045/2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Judicial Review Division
- Date Delivered: 8th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): John M. Mativo
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues for resolution in this case include:
- Whether the existence of two suits challenging the same decision constitutes an abuse of court process.
- Whether the second suit offends the doctrine of sub judice, which prohibits the simultaneous litigation of the same issue in different courts.

3. Facts of the Case:
The applicant in this case is the Republic, represented by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK). The respondents are Paul Kihara Kariuki, the Attorney General, and two others. The case arose from a decision made by the National Development and Communication Cabinet Committee on 8th July 2020, which directed ministries and state departments not to engage external counsel without the Attorney General's approval. The LSK, through its Nairobi Branch, had previously filed a similar suit (HCJR No. E010 of 2020) challenging the same decision. Both suits sought orders of certiorari and prohibition against the Cabinet's decision.

4. Procedural History:
Upon the virtual hearing of the case, the court noted the existence of the earlier suit filed by the LSK Nairobi Branch. The applicant's counsel, Mr. Ochiel, suggested consolidating the two cases, while the State's counsel, Mr. Bitta, opposed consolidation, arguing that the later suit was an abuse of court process. The court invited both parties to formally address the propriety of having two identical suits pending simultaneously.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the Civil Procedure Act, particularly sections 5 and 6, which address the jurisdiction of courts and the doctrine of sub judice, respectively. The sub judice rule prevents courts from hearing cases that are substantially similar to already pending cases.

- Case Law: The court referenced several precedents, including *Stumberg v. Potgeiter* and *Law Society of Kenya v. Centre for Human Rights and Democracy*, which outline the principles of case consolidation and the sub judice doctrine. The Supreme Court of Kenya emphasized the importance of avoiding conflicting decisions and the waste of judicial resources.

- Application: The court found that both suits challenged the same decision and sought identical relief. It noted that the issues raised in the second suit were directly and substantially in issue in the first suit. Therefore, allowing both suits to proceed would violate the doctrine of sub judice and constitute an abuse of court process, as it would lead to unnecessary duplication and potential conflicting judgments.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that the second suit was struck off on the grounds of it being an abuse of court process and for offending the sub judice rule. The decision reinforces the importance of judicial efficiency and the avoidance of multiple proceedings over the same issues.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions recorded in this case.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya in *Republic v. Paul Kihara Kariuki* held that the second suit filed by the main body of the Law Society of Kenya was an abuse of court process due to its similarity to a previously filed suit by the Nairobi Branch. The ruling emphasized the doctrine of sub judice, which prevents multiple litigations on the same issue, thereby promoting judicial efficiency and resource conservation. The case highlights the judiciary's commitment to preventing the misuse of court processes and maintaining order in legal proceedings.


Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

This is the end of the summary preview.