Republic v Law Society of Kenya & another; Ex-Parte, Neddie Eve Akello, Barons Estates Limited (Represented By Collins Kipchumba Ng’etich)[2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
P. Nyamwea
Judgment Date
September 18, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the 2020 case summary of Republic v Law Society of Kenya & another; Ex-Parte Neddie Eve Akello, focusing on Barons Estates Limited's legal representation. Insights on judicial proceedings and outcomes included.

Case Brief: Republic v Law Society of Kenya & another; Ex-Parte: Neddie Eve Akello; Barons Estates Limited (Represented By Collins Kipchumba Ng’etich)(Interested Party) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Republic v. The Law Society of Kenya & Another
- Case Number: Judicial Review Application No. E1104 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya
- Date Delivered: 18th September 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): P. Nyamwea
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues presented before the court include:
1. Whether the ex parte Applicant, Neddie Eve Akello, was denied a fair opportunity to respond to a complaint made against her by the Interested Party before the Law Society of Kenya and its Disciplinary Tribunal.
2. Whether the decisions made by the Law Society of Kenya and the Disciplinary Tribunal were made in bad faith, were irrational, or were ultra vires the powers granted to them by statute.

3. Facts of the Case:
The ex parte Applicant, Neddie Eve Akello, is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya. She challenged the decisions made by the Law Society of Kenya (1st Respondent) and its Disciplinary Tribunal (2nd Respondent), which required her to appear before the Tribunal on 21st September 2020 regarding a complaint lodged by Barons Estates Limited, represented by Collins Kipchumba Ng’etich (Interested Party). Akello contended that she was not given an opportunity to respond to the complaint prior to the referral to the Disciplinary Tribunal, which she claimed was a violation of her rights and due process.

4. Procedural History:
Akello filed a Chamber Summons application on 14th September 2020 seeking urgent leave to apply for orders of certiorari to quash the decisions made by the Respondents and an order of prohibition against further proceedings in Disciplinary Cause No. 187 of 2020. The application was deemed urgent due to the imminent plea-taking hearing scheduled for 21st September 2020. The court considered the application, the grounds provided, and the evidence presented, ultimately deciding to grant leave for judicial review.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The relevant statute considered by the court was Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires leave to be obtained before making an application for judicial review. The purpose of this requirement is to filter out frivolous applications and ensure only meritorious cases proceed.

- Case Law: The court referenced *Republic vs. County Council of Kwale & Another Ex Parte Kondo & 57 Others*, which elucidated the purpose of requiring leave for judicial review applications. The court also cited *R (H) vs Ashworth Special Hospital Authority*, which discussed the discretionary nature of granting stays in judicial review proceedings.

- Application: The court found that Akello met the threshold for an arguable case, as she provided evidence of the disciplinary processes against her and the lack of opportunity to respond to the complaint. The court determined that the decisions of the Respondents could potentially be illegal, thus warranting further investigation through judicial review. The court also noted that the disciplinary proceedings had not yet commenced, allowing for a stay of the proceedings to preserve the status quo.

6. Conclusion:
The High Court granted Akello leave to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition against the Respondents. The court ruled that the leave granted would operate as a stay of the disciplinary proceedings pending the outcome of the substantive judicial review application. This ruling underscores the importance of due process and the right to be heard in disciplinary matters.

7. Dissent:
There is no dissenting opinion noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled in favor of Neddie Eve Akello, granting her leave to challenge the decisions of the Law Society of Kenya and its Disciplinary Tribunal. The court emphasized the necessity for fair process and the right to respond to complaints in disciplinary proceedings. The decision has significant implications for the legal framework governing disciplinary actions against advocates in Kenya, reinforcing the principles of fairness and due process in administrative law.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Republic-v-Law-Society-of-Kenya--another-Ex-Parte-Neddie-Eve-Akello-Barons-Estates-Limited-Represented-By-Collins-Kipchumba-Ng’etich-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2315_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries