1. The application that is before this court for determination is the one dated 19th February 2025 wherein the Applicant is seeking the following orders:
1) …Spent.
2) THAT the Applicant’s portal at the LSK be made active immediately pending the hearing and final determination of the matter herein.
3) THAT the Applicant be granted an ORDER OF CERTIORARI quashing the decision of the Respondents to deactivate the applicant’s LSK portal for the year 2025.
4) THAT an ORDER OF MANDAMUS be issued compelling the Respondents herein to activate the Applicant’s LSK Portal.
The Applicant's case:
2. The applicant is an advocate of high of Kenya and the applicant herein. It is his case that his LSK Portal has been inactive from the beginning of January, 2024 and he stands to continue losing clients and his only source of livelihood since he cannot be able to apply for the current year practicing certificate due to the deactivation of the LSK Portal by the Respondents herein.
3. He argues that the disciplinary matter DTC 33 of 2017 which led to the deactivation of the Applicants LSK portal has never been heard or determined.
4. The portal became inactive pursuant to orders emanating from a Notice to Show Cause (NTC) dated 25th July 2022 issued by the Law Society of Kenya as to why the applicant should not be suspended for a period of 12 months.
5. He argues that the 12 months suspension period is now over and the LSK portal is still inactive and therefore the applicant herein cannot be able to apply for the year 2025 practicing certificate
6. It is his case that he repeatedly tried to engage the Respondents herein with a view to settle the matter amicably to no avail. They never respond to correspondence.
7. He argues that he has not been informed of the decision to escalate the deactivation of the portal to the year 2025 in writing.
8. He argues that the 1st Respondent’s decision is procedurally unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional in so far as it was made without affording the applicant a hearing as required by the rules of natural justice, the constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Section 4 of The Fair Administrative Actions Act.
The Applicant's submissions;
9. He submits that The Respondents’ claim that this Court is functus officio due to the determination of Judicial Review No. HCJR E111 of 2024 is fundamentally flawed.
10. The instant Application challenges the Respondents’ 2025 deactivation of the Applicant’s LSK portal, a distinct administrative action not litigated in the 2024 suit.
11. Reliance is placed in the case of Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council & Others [2008] 2 EA 300, the East African Court of Justice held that a court retains jurisdiction over fresh causes of action arising from new facts, even if related to prior litigation. The 2025 deactivation inflicts a new injury on the Applicant’s rights, warranting judicial review.
12. The doctrine of functus officio, as clarified in Raila Odinga & 2 Others v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 3 Others [2013] eKLR, applies only when a court has exhausted its jurisdiction over a specific matter. Here, the 2025 deactivation presents a fresh dispute, distinct in time and consequence. In Republic v National Land Commission & 2 Others Ex Parte Archdiocese of Nairobi Kenya Registered Trustees [2018] eKLR, the court affirmed that new administrative actions trigger fresh causes of action, unaffected by prior rulings.
13. Article 165(3)(b) of the Constitution vests this Court with jurisdiction to address violations of constitutional rights. The Respondents’ actions threaten the Applicant’s rights under Articles 47 and 48. Denying jurisdiction would undermine Article 159(2)(a), which mandates that courts promote access to justice.
14. In Samuel Kamau Macharia v Kenya Commercial Bank & 2 Others [2012] eKLR, the Supreme Court emphasized that courts must safeguard constitutional protections against administrative overreach.
15. This Court is not functus officio and has full jurisdiction to hear this Application, as it addresses a new and egregious violation of the Applicant’s rights.
16. The Respondents’ reliance on res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21, is misplaced and fails the legal threshold established in Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission v Maina Kiai & 5 Others [2017] eKLR, which requires identical parties, issues, and a final determination.
17. He submits that the 2025 deactivation is a separate administrative act, distinct from the 2024 deactivation litigated in Judicial Review No. HCJR E111 of 2024.
18. In the case of Kamunye & Others v Pioneer General Assurance Society Ltd [1971] EA 263, the court held that res judicata does not apply to suits arising from different causes of action, even between the same parties.
19. He submits that the instant Application includes a prayer for mandamus to compel portal activation, a remedy not sought in the prior suit, which focused on certiorari and prohibition. In Omondi v National Bank of Kenya & Others [2001] EA 177, the court ruled that new reliefs based on fresh facts preclude res judicata.
20. The pending appeal in Civil Appeal HCJR E111 of 2024 renders the prior judgment non-final.
21. The Respondents deactivated the Applicant’s portal without notice, a hearing, or written reasons, flouting Article 47(1) of the Constitution and Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, 2015. In Geothermal Development Company Limited v Attorney General & 3 Others [2013] eKLR, the court quashed an administrative decision for lacking procedural fairness, emphasizing that affected parties must be heard before adverse actions are taken. The Respondents’ opacity and arbitrariness demand judicial intervention.
22. The deactivation, purportedly for non-compliance with a prior order, is a draconian measure that unjustly deprives the Applicant of his livelihood.
23. In Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority Ex Parte Aberdare Freight Services Ltd [2004] eKLR, the court invalidated an administrative action that was disproportionate to the alleged breach. The Respondents’ blanket deactivation, without exploring less punitive measures, is irrational and unlawful.
24. The Respondents have a statutory duty under the Advocates Act, Cap 16, to facilitate advocates’ access to practising certificates. Their refusal to activate the Applicant’s portal is a clear dereliction of this duty. In Kenya National Examinations Council v Republic Ex Parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge [1997] eKLR, the court granted mandamus to enforce a public body’s statutory obligations. The Respondents must be compelled to perform their duty and restore the Applicant’s portal access.
25. The Respondents’ actions are procedurally unfair, unreasonable, and ultra vires, entitling the Applicant to certiorari to quash the deactivation and mandamus to restore his portal access. Failure to grant these remedies would perpetuate an injustice and undermine the rule of law.
26. The Respondents’ demand for costs is unwarranted and punitive. Costs are discretionary under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21, and should not penalize the Applicant for seeking to protect his constitutional rights. In Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 Others v Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 Others [2014] eKLR, the Supreme Court held that costs should not deter legitimate constitutional claims, particularly where public interest or fundamental rights are at stake.
Supplementary Applicant’s Submissions;
27. He submits that essentially the Applicant has a disciplinary matter DTC 33 of 2017that has culminated to his LSK Portal being deactivated since December 2023.
28. That the said LSK Portal became inactive pursuant to Orders emanating from a Notice to Show cause dated 25th July 2022 issued by the Law Society of Kenya as to why the Applicant herein should not be suspended for a period of 12 months.
29. The Applicant moves this as the period of 12 months is now over yet his LSK Portal is still inactive. He has tried to reach out to the respondent to settle this matter amicably in vain.
30. It is the Applicant’s further submission that the deactivation of his LSK portal — effectively rendering him unable to apply for or renew his practicing certificate — is neither provided for nor contemplated as a lawful disciplinary measure under the Advocates Act, the Law Society of Kenya Act, or any subsidiary legislation thereunder.
31. Accordingly, such administrative action is ultra vires, arbitrary, and without legal foundation. It constitutes an unlawful exercise of administrative power in contravention of Article 47 of the Constitution and Sections 4(1), (3), and (4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
32. He submits that by deactivating the Applicant’s LSK Portal — an administrative measure not recognized under the Advocates Act or the LSK Act — the Respondents acted unlawfully and in excess of their mandate.
33. The deactivation of the Applicant’s LSK Portal violates Article 47, 48 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya particularly the right to fair administrative action and the right to a fair hearing respectively.Consequently, he has not been able to practice as he could not apply for his 2024 practising Certificate and subsequently his 2025 practicing.
34. The continued deactivation beyond the 12-month suspension is wholly disproportionate, punitive, and unreasonable, contrary to Article 47(1) and Section 7(2)(l) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, which prohibits administrative actions that are not proportionate to the interests or rights affected.
35. An indefinite suspension without lawful authority, which amounts to constructive striking off in disguise — a sanction that can only be ordered by the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal under Section 60(4)(c) and not by administrative fiat.
36. In R.vs,Wilkers{1770)4 Burr 2527,2539:98ER was that discretion when applied to courts of justice, means sound discretion guided by Law. It must be governed by rule, not by humor: it must not be arbitrary, vague, and fanciful but legal and regular. It is the applicant's case that the discretion and decisions exercised and made by the respondents are not judicial and fall short of the legal tenets and therefore, are null and void and should be quashed and vacated.
37. Discretion vested in the court and tribunals is dependent upon various circumstances, which the court has to consider among them the need to do real and substantial justice to the parties to the suit.
38. At the core of the duty to act fairly and the requirement of fairness is the need to ensure that a person affected by a decision has an effective opportunity to make representations before it is taken, so that he or she has the chance to influence it.
39. This requirement is what informs the key procedural steps set down by the law of giving of notice of an administrative action, and provision of the evidence that will be relied upon during that administrative action.
40. This Court is not only properly seized of the matter in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 47and 165(6) of the Constitution, but is also not divested of jurisdiction in such circumstances, as was noted by the Court of Appeal in Fleur Investments Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes & Another, [2018] eKLR:
"Whereas courts of law are enjoined to defer to specialized Tribunals and other Alternative Dispute Resolution Statutory bodies created by Parliament to resolve certain specific disputes, the court cannot, being a bastion of Justice, sit back and watch such institutions ride roughshod on the rights of citizens who seek refuge under the Constitution and other legislations for protection. The court is perfectly in order to intervene where there is clear abuse of discretion by such bodies, where arbitrariness, malice, capriciousness and disrespect of the Rules of natural justice are manifest. Persons charged with statutory powers and duties ought to exercise the same reasonably and fairly."
41. The remit of this Court as a judicial review Court does not extend to considering the substance and merit of arguments made by the parties as regards the complaint made by the complainant. In particular, a consideration of the status and nature of the Applicant's case before the 2nd Respondent ("the tribunal") is a merit review that will be beyond the standards set in judicial review as set out in the Fair Administrative Action Act, as it is a fact-finding and fact resolution exercise that is normally suitable in the first instance for the normal civil process in a court, or a body with statutory authority to undertake such an exercise such as 2ndRespondent.
42. The standards of merit review set out in section 7 (2) of the Act areas follows:
A court or tribunal under sub-section (1) may review an administrative action or decision, if :-
(a) the person who made the decision-
was not authorized to do so by the empowering provision;
(ii) acted in excess of jurisdiction or power conferred under any written law;
(iii) acted pursuant to delegated power in contravention of any law prohibiting such delegation;
(iv) was biased or may reasonably be suspected of bias;or
(v) denied the person to whom the administrative action or decision relates, a reasonable opportunity to state the person's case;
(b) a mandatory and material procedure or conditionprescribed by an empowering provision was not complied with;
(c) the action or decision was procedurally unfair;
(d) the action or decision was materially influenced by an error of law;
(e) the administrative action or decision in issue wastaken with an ulterior motive or purpose calculated to prejudice the legal rights of the applicant;
(f) the administrator failed to take into account relevant considerations;
(g) the administrator acted on the direction of a person or body not authorised or empowered by any written law to give such directions;
(h) the administrative action or decision was made in badfaith;
the administrative action or decision is not rationally connected to-
the purpose for which it was taken;
(ii) the purpose of the empowering provision;
(iii) the information before the administrator; or
(iv) the reasons given for it by the administrator;
There was an abuse of discretion, unreasonable delay or failure to act in discharge of a duty imposed under any written law;
the administrative action or decision is unreasonable;
the administrative action or decision is not proportionate to the interests or rights affected;
the administrative action or decision violates the legitimate expectations of the person to whom itrelates;
the administrative action or decision is unfair; or
the administrative action or decision is taken or made in abuse of power.
43. It was noted by the Court of Appeal in Suchan Investment Limited vs. Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 3 others, (2016) KLR that even though Article 4 7of the Constitution as read with the grounds for review provided by section 7 of the Fair Administrative Action Act. reveals an implicit shift of judicial review to include aspects of merit review of administrative action, the reviewing court has no mandate to substitute its own decision for that of the administrator or to usurp the roles of the administrator.
44. Coming to the issue at hand, there was procedural impropriety by the Respondents in arriving at the decision to deactivate the LSK portal of the applicant and proceeding to do the same without according the applicant the right to be heard.
The Respondents’ case;
45. According to the Respondents,The Application constitutes a gross abuse of the process of Court, is fatally defective, unmeritorious, scandalous, and a waste of judicial time, and should ultimately be struck out with costs to the Respondents.
46. The orders sought in the present suit were adequately addressed by this Honourable Court in Judicial Review No. HCJR E111 of 2024, as between the same parties on the same dispute.
47. They argue that This Honourable Court is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to reconsider the matter.
48. The current Application is res judicata and the addition of a new prayer for Orders of Mandamus does not and should not alter the Judgment rendered by Justice Jairus Ngaah, which sufficiently addressed the Applicant's dispute.
49. The Applicant lodged Civil Appeal No. E111 of 2024 in the Court of Appeal which is pending determination.
50. The respondent filed a further affidavit wherein it argues that, a complaint for professional misconduct was lodged by Ms. Sheila Scio in Disciplinary Cause No. 33 of 2017 against the Applicant on 8th March 2017 pursuant to Section 60(1) and (2) of the Advocates Act, Cap 16 Laws of Kenya.
51. The complaint arose from the Applicant’s failure to account for Kshs. 1,147,041/= awarded to the Complainant in Case No. 4305 of 2013 Sheila Scio C/a Almasy Restaurant vs. Nairobi City County on 14thNovember 2011.
52. It is their case that the Applicant was duly served and afforded an opportunity to respond. He pleaded not guilty on 22ndMay 2017, and the matter was scheduled for hearing on 4th September 2017 in the presence of the Applicant.
53. On 4th September 2017, the Applicant, through Mr. Jehu, indicated he was indisposed. The Tribunal, invoking Rule 18 of the Advocates (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules, directed that the matter proceed and scheduled Judgment for 22nd January 2018.
54. On 22nd January 2018, the Tribunal deferred delivery of Judgment following the Applicant’s request to file a Further Affidavit introducing his Bill of Costs.
55. A mention for compliance was set for 16th April 2018.
56. The Applicant complied and filed the Further Affidavit and Bill of Costs. The Ruling on taxation was delivered on 8th July 2019, and the matter was scheduled for hearing on 14th October 2019.
57. It is their case that on 14th October 2019, the hearing was deferred to 9th March 2020 due to the Applicant’s absence.
58. The Tribunal ordered the Applicant to release the decretal sum less taxed costs, in accordance with Section 60(9) of the Advocates Act.
59. On 9th March 2020, the Applicant failed to attend the hearing for the second time. He also failed to comply with the Order of the Tribunal to release the sum due to the Complainant less the taxed legal fees, thereby prompting the Tribunal to issue a Notice to Show Cause (NTSC) why he should not be suspended for a period of 12 months. The NTSC was scheduled for hearing on 4thMay 2020.
60. The Tribunal acted within its statutory mandate under Section 60(9) of the Advocates Act, and the suspension was a disciplinary sanction, not a remedy for the Complainant’s loss.
61. They argue that the averment in paragraph 5 of the Supporting Affidavit is misleading and, if relied upon, would subvert the course of justice and undermine the Tribunal’s authority.
62. They submit that the Applicant sought amicable settlement is unsubstantiated and false. No evidence has been tendered to support such engagement.
63. The assertions in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 regarding lack of a fair hearing prior to deactivation of the Applicant’s LSK portal are untenable.
64. The Tribunal acted pursuant to Section 25(1)(f) and (h) of the Advocates Act, and the Applicant was repeatedly afforded an opportunity to respond to the NTSC.
65. The Applicant’s persistent non-compliance necessitated the deactivation of his LSK portal, which remains in force until he complies with the Tribunal’s directions.
66. On 4th May 2020, the NTSC was not heard as the Tribunal was not sitting. It was next listed on 12th April 2021 and deferred to 2nd August 2021 to allow the Applicant to file a response, which he failed to do.
67. By 2nd August 2021, the Applicant had not filed his response. The Tribunal directed parties to negotiate and record a consent on the fee payable.A mention was scheduled for 13th September 2021, failing which the NTSC would proceed.
68. The Applicant’s conduct throughout the proceedings has been marked by delay, non-compliance, and disregard for the Tribunal’s authority, thereby justifying the disciplinary measures imposed according to the Respondents.
69. The Applicant has persistently and deliberately failed to comply with the Tribunal’s orders to release the sum due to the Complainant less the taxed legal fees and has equally failed to respond to the Notice to Show Cause (NTSC), despite being afforded ample opportunity to do so.
70. On 13th September 2021, the NTSC was deferred to 4th October 2021 following the parties’ failure to agree and record a consent. The Applicant through his advocate, Mr. Kenda proposed to settle the amount due to the Complainant by remitting Kshs. 100,000/= per month pending negotiations. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the Applicant to pay the Complainant Kshs. 100,000/= monthly until otherwise directed and file his Bills of Costs for assessment on 4thApril 2022.
71. It is argued that by 4th April 2022, the Applicant had failed to comply with any of the Tribunal’s directions issued on 4thOctober 2021, prompting the Tribunal to defer the NTSC to 20th June 2022.
72. On 20th June 2022, the NTSC was again deferred to 18th July 2022. However, the Tribunal did not sit on the latter date. Notwithstanding, the Applicant remained in gross disobedience of the Tribunal’s orders, having failed to remit the monthly sum of Kshs. 100,000/= to the Complainant.
73. On 13th February 2023, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had only paid Kshs. 100,000/= out of the sum of Kshs. 1,470,000/= thereby prompting the Tribunal to defer the NTSC to 6th March 2023 as a final adjournment.
74. They argue that it is on this basis that the Law Society of Kenya exercised its lawful mandate under Section 25(1)(f) and (h) of the Advocates Act and deactivated the Applicant’s LSK portal. This administrative action being within the lawful mandate of the Law Society of Kenya, does not warrant invocation of this Honourable Court’s jurisdiction. It is noteworthy that the Order forming the basis of the NTSC emanated from the Applicant’s own proposal to pay Kshs. 100,000/= monthly, which he failed to honour. The instant Application is therefore frivolous and an abuse of the court process.
75. The Law Society of Kenya, vide its letters dated 15th April 2024 and 3rd June 2024, duly informed the Applicant of the reasons for the continued deactivation of his portal and urged him to comply with the Tribunal’s Orders. The Applicant was further advised to engage the Complainant’s advocate and issue a professional undertaking for adoption by the Tribunal. To date,the Applicant has failed to take any of these steps.
76. They argues that from the foregoing, it is manifest that the Law Society of Kenya acted within its lawful mandate in invoking Section 25(1)(f) and (h) of the Advocates Act, following repeated opportunities afforded to the Applicant to respond to the NTSC, all of which were squandered.
77. The Tribunal’s record will confirm that no final Judgment has been rendered, nor has due process been violated to justify judicial intervention.
78. To stop the Disciplinary Tribunal from completing carrying out its legal mandate under the relevant law, is an illegal exercise which this Honourable Court in its unfettered discretion, should not assist the Applicant achieve.
79. The orders sought if granted, will without doubt assist the Applicant in preventing a lawfully constituted Tribunal
80. The respondent further raises a concern that the Applicant has failed to enjoin the Complainant to these proceedings.
The Respondents’ submissions;
81. The Application arises from the decision of the Law Society of Kenya in Disciplinary Cause No. 33 of 2017, wherein the Applicant’s LSK portal was deactivated, and he was denied a practising certificate for the year 2024, and by extension 2025, pursuant to Section 25(1)(f) and (h) of the Advocates Act.
82. The decision was precipitated by the Applicant’s persistent disobedience of the 2nd Respondent (Tribunal’s) orders requiring him to remit to Ms. Sheila Scio (hereinafter “the Complainant”) the sum due, less taxed costs, and thereafter to pay monthly instalments of Kshs. 100,000/= until full settlement, in accordance with his own undertaking.
83. The decision was further informed by the Applicant’s continued refusal, failure, and neglect to respond to multiple Notices to Show Cause issued by the Tribunal, as well as his failure to attend scheduled hearings on 4thSeptember 2017, 14th October 2019, and 9th March 2020, despite being duly represented by counsel.
84. As a result of the Applicant’s sustained non-compliance, the hearing of the complaint has never commenced. To date, the Applicant remains in breach of the Tribunal’s directives, notwithstanding the Tribunal’s written appeals dated 15th April 2024 and 3rd June 2024, urging him to comply in order to facilitate reactivation of his LSK portal.
85. They submit that the Applicant previously instituted Judicial Review No. HCJR E111 of 2024 against the Respondents, seeking orders of certiorari and prohibition to quash the decision of the 1st Respondent and restrain the 2nd Respondent from deactivating his LSK portal.
86. The said application was vigorously opposed by the Respondents and was ultimately dismissed by the Honourable Justice Jairus Ngaah in a judgment delivered on 21st November 2024.
87. Despite the dismissal of the earlier suit, the Applicant has continued to wilfully defy the Tribunal’s orders to settle the amount due to the Complainant, thereby perpetuating the deactivation of his LSK portal.
88. Rather than complying with the Tribunal’s lawful directives, in respect of which he was told to pay a monthly instalment of Kshs. 100,000 to the Complainant till payment in full, the Applicant has returned to this Honourable Court with the instant Application.
89. The Applicant’s continued refusal, failure, and/or neglect to honour his undertaking to remit monthly instalments of Kshs. 100,000/= to the Complainant has precipitated the Tribunal’s decision to deny him a practising certificate for the year 2025 and the Respondents will demonstrate that the said decision is within its lawful mandate.
90. Reliance is placed in the Uganda case of Pastoli vs. Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300, in which the Court citing Council of Civil Unions vs. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 2 and an Application byBukoba Gymkhana Club [1963] EA 478 at 479,expressed itself as follows:
“In order to succeed in an application for judicial review, the applicant has to show that the decision or act complained of is tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety...Illegality is when the decision-making authority commits an error of law in the process of taking or making the act, the subject of the complaint. Acting without jurisdiction or ultra vires, or contrary to the provisions of a law or its principles are instances of illegality. It is, for example, illegality, where a Chief Administrative Officer of a District interdicts a public servant on the direction of the District Executive Committee, when the powers to do so are vested by law in the District Service Commission...
Irrationality is when there is such gross unreasonableness in the decision taken or act done, that no reasonable authority, addressing itself to the facts and the law before it, would have made such a decision. Such a decision is usually in defiance of logic and acceptable moral standards...
Procedural Impropriety is when there is a failure to act fairly on the part of the decision-making authority in the process of taking a decision. The unfairness may be in non-observance of the Rules of Natural Justice or to act with procedural fairness towards one to be affected by the decision. It may also involve failure to adhere and observe procedural rules expressly laid down in a statute or legislative Instrument by which such authority exercises jurisdiction to make a decision.”
91. They submit that the decision was neither ultra vires nor arbitrary and was made following sustained non-compliance by the Applicant with Tribunal orders, despite repeated indulgence and procedural latitude.
92. In Misc. Application No. 317 of 2018, Republic versus Advocates Disciplinary Tribute & Anor, the Court defined procedural impropriety as a failure to adhere to statutory procedures or the rules of natural justice in the making of a decision. It held that:
“A decision suffers from procedural impropriety if in the process of its making, the procedures prescribed by statute are not followed or if the rules of natural justice are not adhered to. Decision makers must act fairly in reaching their decisions... A decision contrary to natural justice is where the presiding Judge or Magistrate or Tribunal denies a litigant some right or privilege or benefit to which he is entitled to in the ordinary course of the proceedings…”
93. The Respondents submit that they complied with procedural requirements in handling Disciplinary Cause No. 33 of 2017 and in denying the Applicant a practicing certificate for the year 2025 as demonstrated below.
94. The Tribunal is established under Section 57(1) of the Advocates Act. Section 60(3) reads as follows -
A complaint against an advocate of professional misconduct, which expression includes disgraceful or dishonourable conduct incompatible with the status of an advocate may be made to the Tribunal by any person."
95. The Complainant lodged a complaint against the Applicant. In compliance with Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, the Applicant was afforded an opportunity to appear before the Tribunal, took plea on 22nd May 2017, and was allowed to respond to the complaint.
96. Section 60(3) of the Advocates Act further mandates that the Tribunal shall furnish the advocate with a copy of the complaint and supporting evidence and allow inspe
[...truncated]
1) …Spent.
2) THAT the Applicant’s portal at the LSK be made active immediately pending the hearing and final determination of the matter herein.
3) THAT the Applicant be granted an ORDER OF CERTIORARI quashing the decision of the Respondents to deactivate the applicant’s LSK portal for the year 2025.
4) THAT an ORDER OF MANDAMUS be issued compelling the Respondents herein to activate the Applicant’s LSK Portal.
The Applicant's case:
2. The applicant is an advocate of high of Kenya and the applicant herein. It is his case that his LSK Portal has been inactive from the beginning of January, 2024 and he stands to continue losing clients and his only source of livelihood since he cannot be able to apply for the current year practicing certificate due to the deactivation of the LSK Portal by the Respondents herein.
3. He argues that the disciplinary matter DTC 33 of 2017 which led to the deactivation of the Applicants LSK portal has never been heard or determined.
4. The portal became inactive pursuant to orders emanating from a Notice to Show Cause (NTC) dated 25th July 2022 issued by the Law Society of Kenya as to why the applicant should not be suspended for a period of 12 months.
5. He argues that the 12 months suspension period is now over and the LSK portal is still inactive and therefore the applicant herein cannot be able to apply for the year 2025 practicing certificate
6. It is his case that he repeatedly tried to engage the Respondents herein with a view to settle the matter amicably to no avail. They never respond to correspondence.
7. He argues that he has not been informed of the decision to escalate the deactivation of the portal to the year 2025 in writing.
8. He argues that the 1st Respondent’s decision is procedurally unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional in so far as it was made without affording the applicant a hearing as required by the rules of natural justice, the constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Section 4 of The Fair Administrative Actions Act.
The Applicant's submissions;
9. He submits that The Respondents’ claim that this Court is functus officio due to the determination of Judicial Review No. HCJR E111 of 2024 is fundamentally flawed.
10. The instant Application challenges the Respondents’ 2025 deactivation of the Applicant’s LSK portal, a distinct administrative action not litigated in the 2024 suit.
11. Reliance is placed in the case of Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council & Others [2008] 2 EA 300, the East African Court of Justice held that a court retains jurisdiction over fresh causes of action arising from new facts, even if related to prior litigation. The 2025 deactivation inflicts a new injury on the Applicant’s rights, warranting judicial review.
12. The doctrine of functus officio, as clarified in Raila Odinga & 2 Others v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 3 Others [2013] eKLR, applies only when a court has exhausted its jurisdiction over a specific matter. Here, the 2025 deactivation presents a fresh dispute, distinct in time and consequence. In Republic v National Land Commission & 2 Others Ex Parte Archdiocese of Nairobi Kenya Registered Trustees [2018] eKLR, the court affirmed that new administrative actions trigger fresh causes of action, unaffected by prior rulings.
13. Article 165(3)(b) of the Constitution vests this Court with jurisdiction to address violations of constitutional rights. The Respondents’ actions threaten the Applicant’s rights under Articles 47 and 48. Denying jurisdiction would undermine Article 159(2)(a), which mandates that courts promote access to justice.
14. In Samuel Kamau Macharia v Kenya Commercial Bank & 2 Others [2012] eKLR, the Supreme Court emphasized that courts must safeguard constitutional protections against administrative overreach.
15. This Court is not functus officio and has full jurisdiction to hear this Application, as it addresses a new and egregious violation of the Applicant’s rights.
16. The Respondents’ reliance on res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21, is misplaced and fails the legal threshold established in Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission v Maina Kiai & 5 Others [2017] eKLR, which requires identical parties, issues, and a final determination.
17. He submits that the 2025 deactivation is a separate administrative act, distinct from the 2024 deactivation litigated in Judicial Review No. HCJR E111 of 2024.
18. In the case of Kamunye & Others v Pioneer General Assurance Society Ltd [1971] EA 263, the court held that res judicata does not apply to suits arising from different causes of action, even between the same parties.
19. He submits that the instant Application includes a prayer for mandamus to compel portal activation, a remedy not sought in the prior suit, which focused on certiorari and prohibition. In Omondi v National Bank of Kenya & Others [2001] EA 177, the court ruled that new reliefs based on fresh facts preclude res judicata.
20. The pending appeal in Civil Appeal HCJR E111 of 2024 renders the prior judgment non-final.
21. The Respondents deactivated the Applicant’s portal without notice, a hearing, or written reasons, flouting Article 47(1) of the Constitution and Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, 2015. In Geothermal Development Company Limited v Attorney General & 3 Others [2013] eKLR, the court quashed an administrative decision for lacking procedural fairness, emphasizing that affected parties must be heard before adverse actions are taken. The Respondents’ opacity and arbitrariness demand judicial intervention.
22. The deactivation, purportedly for non-compliance with a prior order, is a draconian measure that unjustly deprives the Applicant of his livelihood.
23. In Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority Ex Parte Aberdare Freight Services Ltd [2004] eKLR, the court invalidated an administrative action that was disproportionate to the alleged breach. The Respondents’ blanket deactivation, without exploring less punitive measures, is irrational and unlawful.
24. The Respondents have a statutory duty under the Advocates Act, Cap 16, to facilitate advocates’ access to practising certificates. Their refusal to activate the Applicant’s portal is a clear dereliction of this duty. In Kenya National Examinations Council v Republic Ex Parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge [1997] eKLR, the court granted mandamus to enforce a public body’s statutory obligations. The Respondents must be compelled to perform their duty and restore the Applicant’s portal access.
25. The Respondents’ actions are procedurally unfair, unreasonable, and ultra vires, entitling the Applicant to certiorari to quash the deactivation and mandamus to restore his portal access. Failure to grant these remedies would perpetuate an injustice and undermine the rule of law.
26. The Respondents’ demand for costs is unwarranted and punitive. Costs are discretionary under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21, and should not penalize the Applicant for seeking to protect his constitutional rights. In Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 Others v Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 Others [2014] eKLR, the Supreme Court held that costs should not deter legitimate constitutional claims, particularly where public interest or fundamental rights are at stake.
Supplementary Applicant’s Submissions;
27. He submits that essentially the Applicant has a disciplinary matter DTC 33 of 2017that has culminated to his LSK Portal being deactivated since December 2023.
28. That the said LSK Portal became inactive pursuant to Orders emanating from a Notice to Show cause dated 25th July 2022 issued by the Law Society of Kenya as to why the Applicant herein should not be suspended for a period of 12 months.
29. The Applicant moves this as the period of 12 months is now over yet his LSK Portal is still inactive. He has tried to reach out to the respondent to settle this matter amicably in vain.
30. It is the Applicant’s further submission that the deactivation of his LSK portal — effectively rendering him unable to apply for or renew his practicing certificate — is neither provided for nor contemplated as a lawful disciplinary measure under the Advocates Act, the Law Society of Kenya Act, or any subsidiary legislation thereunder.
31. Accordingly, such administrative action is ultra vires, arbitrary, and without legal foundation. It constitutes an unlawful exercise of administrative power in contravention of Article 47 of the Constitution and Sections 4(1), (3), and (4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
32. He submits that by deactivating the Applicant’s LSK Portal — an administrative measure not recognized under the Advocates Act or the LSK Act — the Respondents acted unlawfully and in excess of their mandate.
33. The deactivation of the Applicant’s LSK Portal violates Article 47, 48 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya particularly the right to fair administrative action and the right to a fair hearing respectively.Consequently, he has not been able to practice as he could not apply for his 2024 practising Certificate and subsequently his 2025 practicing.
34. The continued deactivation beyond the 12-month suspension is wholly disproportionate, punitive, and unreasonable, contrary to Article 47(1) and Section 7(2)(l) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, which prohibits administrative actions that are not proportionate to the interests or rights affected.
35. An indefinite suspension without lawful authority, which amounts to constructive striking off in disguise — a sanction that can only be ordered by the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal under Section 60(4)(c) and not by administrative fiat.
36. In R.vs,Wilkers{1770)4 Burr 2527,2539:98ER was that discretion when applied to courts of justice, means sound discretion guided by Law. It must be governed by rule, not by humor: it must not be arbitrary, vague, and fanciful but legal and regular. It is the applicant's case that the discretion and decisions exercised and made by the respondents are not judicial and fall short of the legal tenets and therefore, are null and void and should be quashed and vacated.
37. Discretion vested in the court and tribunals is dependent upon various circumstances, which the court has to consider among them the need to do real and substantial justice to the parties to the suit.
38. At the core of the duty to act fairly and the requirement of fairness is the need to ensure that a person affected by a decision has an effective opportunity to make representations before it is taken, so that he or she has the chance to influence it.
39. This requirement is what informs the key procedural steps set down by the law of giving of notice of an administrative action, and provision of the evidence that will be relied upon during that administrative action.
40. This Court is not only properly seized of the matter in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 47and 165(6) of the Constitution, but is also not divested of jurisdiction in such circumstances, as was noted by the Court of Appeal in Fleur Investments Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes & Another, [2018] eKLR:
"Whereas courts of law are enjoined to defer to specialized Tribunals and other Alternative Dispute Resolution Statutory bodies created by Parliament to resolve certain specific disputes, the court cannot, being a bastion of Justice, sit back and watch such institutions ride roughshod on the rights of citizens who seek refuge under the Constitution and other legislations for protection. The court is perfectly in order to intervene where there is clear abuse of discretion by such bodies, where arbitrariness, malice, capriciousness and disrespect of the Rules of natural justice are manifest. Persons charged with statutory powers and duties ought to exercise the same reasonably and fairly."
41. The remit of this Court as a judicial review Court does not extend to considering the substance and merit of arguments made by the parties as regards the complaint made by the complainant. In particular, a consideration of the status and nature of the Applicant's case before the 2nd Respondent ("the tribunal") is a merit review that will be beyond the standards set in judicial review as set out in the Fair Administrative Action Act, as it is a fact-finding and fact resolution exercise that is normally suitable in the first instance for the normal civil process in a court, or a body with statutory authority to undertake such an exercise such as 2ndRespondent.
42. The standards of merit review set out in section 7 (2) of the Act areas follows:
A court or tribunal under sub-section (1) may review an administrative action or decision, if :-
(a) the person who made the decision-
was not authorized to do so by the empowering provision;
(ii) acted in excess of jurisdiction or power conferred under any written law;
(iii) acted pursuant to delegated power in contravention of any law prohibiting such delegation;
(iv) was biased or may reasonably be suspected of bias;or
(v) denied the person to whom the administrative action or decision relates, a reasonable opportunity to state the person's case;
(b) a mandatory and material procedure or conditionprescribed by an empowering provision was not complied with;
(c) the action or decision was procedurally unfair;
(d) the action or decision was materially influenced by an error of law;
(e) the administrative action or decision in issue wastaken with an ulterior motive or purpose calculated to prejudice the legal rights of the applicant;
(f) the administrator failed to take into account relevant considerations;
(g) the administrator acted on the direction of a person or body not authorised or empowered by any written law to give such directions;
(h) the administrative action or decision was made in badfaith;
the administrative action or decision is not rationally connected to-
the purpose for which it was taken;
(ii) the purpose of the empowering provision;
(iii) the information before the administrator; or
(iv) the reasons given for it by the administrator;
There was an abuse of discretion, unreasonable delay or failure to act in discharge of a duty imposed under any written law;
the administrative action or decision is unreasonable;
the administrative action or decision is not proportionate to the interests or rights affected;
the administrative action or decision violates the legitimate expectations of the person to whom itrelates;
the administrative action or decision is unfair; or
the administrative action or decision is taken or made in abuse of power.
43. It was noted by the Court of Appeal in Suchan Investment Limited vs. Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 3 others, (2016) KLR that even though Article 4 7of the Constitution as read with the grounds for review provided by section 7 of the Fair Administrative Action Act. reveals an implicit shift of judicial review to include aspects of merit review of administrative action, the reviewing court has no mandate to substitute its own decision for that of the administrator or to usurp the roles of the administrator.
44. Coming to the issue at hand, there was procedural impropriety by the Respondents in arriving at the decision to deactivate the LSK portal of the applicant and proceeding to do the same without according the applicant the right to be heard.
The Respondents’ case;
45. According to the Respondents,The Application constitutes a gross abuse of the process of Court, is fatally defective, unmeritorious, scandalous, and a waste of judicial time, and should ultimately be struck out with costs to the Respondents.
46. The orders sought in the present suit were adequately addressed by this Honourable Court in Judicial Review No. HCJR E111 of 2024, as between the same parties on the same dispute.
47. They argue that This Honourable Court is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to reconsider the matter.
48. The current Application is res judicata and the addition of a new prayer for Orders of Mandamus does not and should not alter the Judgment rendered by Justice Jairus Ngaah, which sufficiently addressed the Applicant's dispute.
49. The Applicant lodged Civil Appeal No. E111 of 2024 in the Court of Appeal which is pending determination.
50. The respondent filed a further affidavit wherein it argues that, a complaint for professional misconduct was lodged by Ms. Sheila Scio in Disciplinary Cause No. 33 of 2017 against the Applicant on 8th March 2017 pursuant to Section 60(1) and (2) of the Advocates Act, Cap 16 Laws of Kenya.
51. The complaint arose from the Applicant’s failure to account for Kshs. 1,147,041/= awarded to the Complainant in Case No. 4305 of 2013 Sheila Scio C/a Almasy Restaurant vs. Nairobi City County on 14thNovember 2011.
52. It is their case that the Applicant was duly served and afforded an opportunity to respond. He pleaded not guilty on 22ndMay 2017, and the matter was scheduled for hearing on 4th September 2017 in the presence of the Applicant.
53. On 4th September 2017, the Applicant, through Mr. Jehu, indicated he was indisposed. The Tribunal, invoking Rule 18 of the Advocates (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules, directed that the matter proceed and scheduled Judgment for 22nd January 2018.
54. On 22nd January 2018, the Tribunal deferred delivery of Judgment following the Applicant’s request to file a Further Affidavit introducing his Bill of Costs.
55. A mention for compliance was set for 16th April 2018.
56. The Applicant complied and filed the Further Affidavit and Bill of Costs. The Ruling on taxation was delivered on 8th July 2019, and the matter was scheduled for hearing on 14th October 2019.
57. It is their case that on 14th October 2019, the hearing was deferred to 9th March 2020 due to the Applicant’s absence.
58. The Tribunal ordered the Applicant to release the decretal sum less taxed costs, in accordance with Section 60(9) of the Advocates Act.
59. On 9th March 2020, the Applicant failed to attend the hearing for the second time. He also failed to comply with the Order of the Tribunal to release the sum due to the Complainant less the taxed legal fees, thereby prompting the Tribunal to issue a Notice to Show Cause (NTSC) why he should not be suspended for a period of 12 months. The NTSC was scheduled for hearing on 4thMay 2020.
60. The Tribunal acted within its statutory mandate under Section 60(9) of the Advocates Act, and the suspension was a disciplinary sanction, not a remedy for the Complainant’s loss.
61. They argue that the averment in paragraph 5 of the Supporting Affidavit is misleading and, if relied upon, would subvert the course of justice and undermine the Tribunal’s authority.
62. They submit that the Applicant sought amicable settlement is unsubstantiated and false. No evidence has been tendered to support such engagement.
63. The assertions in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 regarding lack of a fair hearing prior to deactivation of the Applicant’s LSK portal are untenable.
64. The Tribunal acted pursuant to Section 25(1)(f) and (h) of the Advocates Act, and the Applicant was repeatedly afforded an opportunity to respond to the NTSC.
65. The Applicant’s persistent non-compliance necessitated the deactivation of his LSK portal, which remains in force until he complies with the Tribunal’s directions.
66. On 4th May 2020, the NTSC was not heard as the Tribunal was not sitting. It was next listed on 12th April 2021 and deferred to 2nd August 2021 to allow the Applicant to file a response, which he failed to do.
67. By 2nd August 2021, the Applicant had not filed his response. The Tribunal directed parties to negotiate and record a consent on the fee payable.A mention was scheduled for 13th September 2021, failing which the NTSC would proceed.
68. The Applicant’s conduct throughout the proceedings has been marked by delay, non-compliance, and disregard for the Tribunal’s authority, thereby justifying the disciplinary measures imposed according to the Respondents.
69. The Applicant has persistently and deliberately failed to comply with the Tribunal’s orders to release the sum due to the Complainant less the taxed legal fees and has equally failed to respond to the Notice to Show Cause (NTSC), despite being afforded ample opportunity to do so.
70. On 13th September 2021, the NTSC was deferred to 4th October 2021 following the parties’ failure to agree and record a consent. The Applicant through his advocate, Mr. Kenda proposed to settle the amount due to the Complainant by remitting Kshs. 100,000/= per month pending negotiations. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the Applicant to pay the Complainant Kshs. 100,000/= monthly until otherwise directed and file his Bills of Costs for assessment on 4thApril 2022.
71. It is argued that by 4th April 2022, the Applicant had failed to comply with any of the Tribunal’s directions issued on 4thOctober 2021, prompting the Tribunal to defer the NTSC to 20th June 2022.
72. On 20th June 2022, the NTSC was again deferred to 18th July 2022. However, the Tribunal did not sit on the latter date. Notwithstanding, the Applicant remained in gross disobedience of the Tribunal’s orders, having failed to remit the monthly sum of Kshs. 100,000/= to the Complainant.
73. On 13th February 2023, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had only paid Kshs. 100,000/= out of the sum of Kshs. 1,470,000/= thereby prompting the Tribunal to defer the NTSC to 6th March 2023 as a final adjournment.
74. They argue that it is on this basis that the Law Society of Kenya exercised its lawful mandate under Section 25(1)(f) and (h) of the Advocates Act and deactivated the Applicant’s LSK portal. This administrative action being within the lawful mandate of the Law Society of Kenya, does not warrant invocation of this Honourable Court’s jurisdiction. It is noteworthy that the Order forming the basis of the NTSC emanated from the Applicant’s own proposal to pay Kshs. 100,000/= monthly, which he failed to honour. The instant Application is therefore frivolous and an abuse of the court process.
75. The Law Society of Kenya, vide its letters dated 15th April 2024 and 3rd June 2024, duly informed the Applicant of the reasons for the continued deactivation of his portal and urged him to comply with the Tribunal’s Orders. The Applicant was further advised to engage the Complainant’s advocate and issue a professional undertaking for adoption by the Tribunal. To date,the Applicant has failed to take any of these steps.
76. They argues that from the foregoing, it is manifest that the Law Society of Kenya acted within its lawful mandate in invoking Section 25(1)(f) and (h) of the Advocates Act, following repeated opportunities afforded to the Applicant to respond to the NTSC, all of which were squandered.
77. The Tribunal’s record will confirm that no final Judgment has been rendered, nor has due process been violated to justify judicial intervention.
78. To stop the Disciplinary Tribunal from completing carrying out its legal mandate under the relevant law, is an illegal exercise which this Honourable Court in its unfettered discretion, should not assist the Applicant achieve.
79. The orders sought if granted, will without doubt assist the Applicant in preventing a lawfully constituted Tribunal
80. The respondent further raises a concern that the Applicant has failed to enjoin the Complainant to these proceedings.
The Respondents’ submissions;
81. The Application arises from the decision of the Law Society of Kenya in Disciplinary Cause No. 33 of 2017, wherein the Applicant’s LSK portal was deactivated, and he was denied a practising certificate for the year 2024, and by extension 2025, pursuant to Section 25(1)(f) and (h) of the Advocates Act.
82. The decision was precipitated by the Applicant’s persistent disobedience of the 2nd Respondent (Tribunal’s) orders requiring him to remit to Ms. Sheila Scio (hereinafter “the Complainant”) the sum due, less taxed costs, and thereafter to pay monthly instalments of Kshs. 100,000/= until full settlement, in accordance with his own undertaking.
83. The decision was further informed by the Applicant’s continued refusal, failure, and neglect to respond to multiple Notices to Show Cause issued by the Tribunal, as well as his failure to attend scheduled hearings on 4thSeptember 2017, 14th October 2019, and 9th March 2020, despite being duly represented by counsel.
84. As a result of the Applicant’s sustained non-compliance, the hearing of the complaint has never commenced. To date, the Applicant remains in breach of the Tribunal’s directives, notwithstanding the Tribunal’s written appeals dated 15th April 2024 and 3rd June 2024, urging him to comply in order to facilitate reactivation of his LSK portal.
85. They submit that the Applicant previously instituted Judicial Review No. HCJR E111 of 2024 against the Respondents, seeking orders of certiorari and prohibition to quash the decision of the 1st Respondent and restrain the 2nd Respondent from deactivating his LSK portal.
86. The said application was vigorously opposed by the Respondents and was ultimately dismissed by the Honourable Justice Jairus Ngaah in a judgment delivered on 21st November 2024.
87. Despite the dismissal of the earlier suit, the Applicant has continued to wilfully defy the Tribunal’s orders to settle the amount due to the Complainant, thereby perpetuating the deactivation of his LSK portal.
88. Rather than complying with the Tribunal’s lawful directives, in respect of which he was told to pay a monthly instalment of Kshs. 100,000 to the Complainant till payment in full, the Applicant has returned to this Honourable Court with the instant Application.
89. The Applicant’s continued refusal, failure, and/or neglect to honour his undertaking to remit monthly instalments of Kshs. 100,000/= to the Complainant has precipitated the Tribunal’s decision to deny him a practising certificate for the year 2025 and the Respondents will demonstrate that the said decision is within its lawful mandate.
90. Reliance is placed in the Uganda case of Pastoli vs. Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300, in which the Court citing Council of Civil Unions vs. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 2 and an Application byBukoba Gymkhana Club [1963] EA 478 at 479,expressed itself as follows:
“In order to succeed in an application for judicial review, the applicant has to show that the decision or act complained of is tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety...Illegality is when the decision-making authority commits an error of law in the process of taking or making the act, the subject of the complaint. Acting without jurisdiction or ultra vires, or contrary to the provisions of a law or its principles are instances of illegality. It is, for example, illegality, where a Chief Administrative Officer of a District interdicts a public servant on the direction of the District Executive Committee, when the powers to do so are vested by law in the District Service Commission...
Irrationality is when there is such gross unreasonableness in the decision taken or act done, that no reasonable authority, addressing itself to the facts and the law before it, would have made such a decision. Such a decision is usually in defiance of logic and acceptable moral standards...
Procedural Impropriety is when there is a failure to act fairly on the part of the decision-making authority in the process of taking a decision. The unfairness may be in non-observance of the Rules of Natural Justice or to act with procedural fairness towards one to be affected by the decision. It may also involve failure to adhere and observe procedural rules expressly laid down in a statute or legislative Instrument by which such authority exercises jurisdiction to make a decision.”
91. They submit that the decision was neither ultra vires nor arbitrary and was made following sustained non-compliance by the Applicant with Tribunal orders, despite repeated indulgence and procedural latitude.
92. In Misc. Application No. 317 of 2018, Republic versus Advocates Disciplinary Tribute & Anor, the Court defined procedural impropriety as a failure to adhere to statutory procedures or the rules of natural justice in the making of a decision. It held that:
“A decision suffers from procedural impropriety if in the process of its making, the procedures prescribed by statute are not followed or if the rules of natural justice are not adhered to. Decision makers must act fairly in reaching their decisions... A decision contrary to natural justice is where the presiding Judge or Magistrate or Tribunal denies a litigant some right or privilege or benefit to which he is entitled to in the ordinary course of the proceedings…”
93. The Respondents submit that they complied with procedural requirements in handling Disciplinary Cause No. 33 of 2017 and in denying the Applicant a practicing certificate for the year 2025 as demonstrated below.
94. The Tribunal is established under Section 57(1) of the Advocates Act. Section 60(3) reads as follows -
A complaint against an advocate of professional misconduct, which expression includes disgraceful or dishonourable conduct incompatible with the status of an advocate may be made to the Tribunal by any person."
95. The Complainant lodged a complaint against the Applicant. In compliance with Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, the Applicant was afforded an opportunity to appear before the Tribunal, took plea on 22nd May 2017, and was allowed to respond to the complaint.
96. Section 60(3) of the Advocates Act further mandates that the Tribunal shall furnish the advocate with a copy of the complaint and supporting evidence and allow inspe
[...truncated]