Nahason Wambua Mwangangi & 4 others (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of other pastors and/or members of Eagle rise Christian Church) v Leonard Munyao Wambua [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Machakos
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
D. K. Kemei - J
Judgment Date
October 16, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Nahason Wambua Mwangangi & others v Leonard Munyao Wambua [2020] eKLR. Discover key legal insights and implications for Eagle Rise Christian Church and its members.

Case Brief: Nahason Wambua Mwangangi & 4 others (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of other pastors and/or members of Eagle rise Christian Church) v Leonard Munyao Wambua [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Rev. Nahason Wambua Mwangi & Others v. Rev. Leonard Munyua Wambua
- Case Number: Civil Suit No. 13 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Machakos
- Date Delivered: October 16, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): D. K. Kemei - J
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve the following central legal issues:
1. Should the proceedings dated July 8, 2020, along with the Plaintiffs' submissions dated October 6, 2020, be expunged due to the lack of a valid practicing certificate by one of the Advocates representing the Plaintiffs?
2. Should the Defendant's application dated September 30, 2020, take precedence over the application dated July 29, 2020?

3. Facts of the Case:
The Plaintiffs, consisting of five pastors, are suing the Defendant, Rev. Leonard Munyua Wambua, representing themselves and other members of the Eagle Rise Christian Church. An objection was raised by the Defendant's counsel, Miss Mutuku, regarding the validity of Mr. Muithya, one of the Advocates representing the Plaintiffs, claiming he did not hold a valid practicing certificate for the year 2020. This led to a request for the court to expunge the proceedings in which Mr. Muithya participated.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the court system with several key developments:
- On July 8, 2020, proceedings were held with Mr. Muithya participating.
- On July 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an application to cite the Defendant for contempt of court orders made on July 8, 2020.
- The Defendant subsequently filed an application on September 30, 2020, seeking to review or set aside the orders from July 8, 2020, asserting that the issues raised had already occurred.
- The court was asked to determine the validity of Mr. Muithya's participation and the precedence of the Defendant's applications.

5. Analysis:
- Rules:
The court considered the Advocates Act, particularly Section 34, which mandates that all Advocates must hold a valid practicing certificate to represent clients in court. The letter from the Law Society of Kenya confirmed Mr. Muithya's lack of a valid practicing certificate for 2020.

- Case Law:
The court referenced Supreme Court Petition No. 36 of 2014, which addressed the implications of an Advocate's lack of a practicing certificate. It emphasized that while an Advocate must hold a valid certificate, the right to access justice for litigants should not be compromised due to the Advocate's status.

- Application:
The court applied the rules and case law to the facts by acknowledging the lack of a valid practicing certificate of Mr. Muithya but determined that expunging the proceedings would prejudice the Plaintiffs' right to access justice. The court ruled that the participation of Mr. Muithya did not invalidate the pleadings as they were signed by another Advocate, Mr. Mutia, who held a valid certificate. The court decided that the Defendant’s application for review should await the determination of the contempt application, emphasizing the importance of addressing contempt issues promptly.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that the proceedings of July 8, 2020, would not be expunged, allowing the Plaintiffs to retain their right to pursue justice. The Defendant's application dated September 30, 2020, was ordered to wait until the contempt application dated July 29, 2020, was resolved. This decision underscored the principle of access to justice.

7. Dissent:
No dissenting opinions were noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, determining that the lack of a valid practicing certificate for one Advocate did not invalidate the proceedings in which he participated. The court prioritized the right to access justice over procedural technicalities, emphasizing that issues of contempt must be addressed before considering other applications. This case highlights the balance between legal representation standards and the fundamental right to justice.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Nahason-Wambua-Mwangangi--4-others-Suing-on-their-own-behalf-and-on-behalf-of-other-pastors-and-or-members-of-Eagle-rise-Christian-Church-v-Leonard-Munyao-Wambua-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2252_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries