Republic v Law Society of Kenya & another Ex Parte Neddie Eve Akello; Marianne Jebet Kitany (Interested Party) [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. P. Nyamweaya
Judgment Date
September 18, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Republic v Law Society of Kenya & another Ex Parte Neddie Eve Akello; Marianne Jebet Kitany (Interested Party) [2020] eKLR, analyzing key legal principles and implications in this landmark judgment.

Case Brief: Republic v Law Society of Kenya & another Ex Parte Neddie Eve Akello; Marianne Jebet Kitany (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. E1103 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: 18th September 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. P. Nyamweaya
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues in this case revolve around whether the decisions made by the Law Society of Kenya and its Disciplinary Tribunal regarding the ex parte Applicant, Neddie Eve Akello, were lawful. Specifically, the court must resolve:
- Whether the ex parte Applicant was denied the opportunity to respond to a complaint before being summoned to take a plea.
- Whether the actions of the Respondents were conducted in bad faith and in violation of statutory provisions.

3. Facts of the Case:
The ex parte Applicant, Neddie Eve Akello, is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya who challenged the decisions made by the Law Society of Kenya (1st Respondent) and its Disciplinary Tribunal (2nd Respondent). On 24th August 2020, she received a notice requiring her to appear before the Disciplinary Tribunal to take a plea regarding a complaint lodged by Marianne Jebet Kitany (Interested Party). Akello contended that she was not given an opportunity to respond to the complaint before the referral to the Disciplinary Tribunal, which led her to seek judicial review of the Respondents' decisions.

4. Procedural History:
Akello filed a Chamber Summons application on 14th September 2020, requesting leave to apply for orders of certiorari to quash the decisions made by the Respondents and for an order of prohibition against further proceedings in Disciplinary Cause No. 188 of 2020. The application was deemed urgent due to the imminent plea-taking scheduled for 21st September 2020. The court considered the application and ultimately granted leave for judicial review, allowing for a stay of the disciplinary proceedings pending the determination of the substantive application.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court referenced Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which mandates that leave must be granted before making an application for judicial review. The purpose of this requirement is to filter out frivolous claims and ensure that only serious matters proceed to a full hearing.

- Case Law: The court cited the case of *Republic vs. County Council of Kwale & Another Ex Parte Kondo & 57 Others* to emphasize the necessity of obtaining leave for judicial review. Additionally, it referenced *R (H) vs. Ashworth Special Hospital Authority* to illustrate the principles surrounding the granting of stay orders during judicial review applications, highlighting the importance of preserving the status quo.

- Application: The court found that the ex parte Applicant had established an arguable case based on the evidence presented, which indicated that the Respondents had acted without affording her a fair chance to respond to the allegations against her. The court reasoned that the disciplinary proceedings had not yet commenced, and thus, a stay was appropriate to prevent any potential prejudice to the Applicant while the legality of the Respondents' actions was under review.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the ex parte Applicant by granting her leave to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition. The decision underscored the importance of due process in disciplinary proceedings and highlighted the court's role in ensuring that administrative actions comply with legal standards.

7. Dissent:
There was no dissenting opinion noted in this ruling.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya granted Neddie Eve Akello leave to seek judicial review of the decisions made by the Law Society of Kenya and its Disciplinary Tribunal. The ruling emphasizes the necessity for adherence to procedural fairness and the legal obligation to provide individuals an opportunity to respond to complaints before disciplinary actions are taken. This case sets a significant precedent regarding the rights of advocates in disciplinary proceedings and the judicial oversight of administrative actions.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Republic-v-Law-Society-of-Kenya--another-Ex-Parte-Neddie-Eve-Akello-Marianne-Jebet-Kitany-Interested-Party-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2417_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries