1. On 8th August 2025 the court directed that the Chamber Summons dated 31st July 2025 shall be heard in the following terms;
1) The Applicant will file and serve the Substantive Notice of Motion within 14 days.
2) Prayer number two of the Chamber Summons dated 31st July 2025 shall be heard alongside the Notice of Motion. This was the prayer seeking; THAT, the grant of leave do operate as a stay of execution of the Respondent's Decision dated 10-2-2025. and an its intended consequences pending the hearing and determination of this suit and/or further Orders of the Court. (It was actually prayer 3 of the Chamber Summons.)
2. The applicant thereafter filed the Notice of Motion dated 22nd August, 2025.
3. Prayer 2 of the Chamber Summons dated 31st July 2025 and the Notice of Motion date 22nd August, 2025 form the subject of this judgment. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant seeks the following orders : -
(i) That the Honourable Court be pleased to grant an Order of Certiorari to bring before the Honourable Court and quash the Decision of the Respondent dated 10th February 2025.
THE APPLICANTS CASE:
4. The Applicant is troubled because, according to him, the Respondent arrived at an unfair decision on 10th February, 2025 by condemning him for not accounting for and withholding a sum of KES. 62.915.950.00 as settlement of the Complainant's/Interested Party's tender of 2004 whose particulars and the extent of liability on his part were not availed before the Respondent and with no clear statement of account thereof. The impugned decision was ultra vires for being done without jurisdiction pursuant to Section 60 (4)(e) and 60(9) of the Advocates Act Cap. 16 Laws of Kenya.
5. He argues that the impugned decision was against his right to fair hearing, especially the right against being subjected to double jeopardy since it proceeded to hear and determine the said disciplinary cause while the Complainant's civil case against me in MILIMANI HCC SUIT (OS) NO. E063 OF 2024, seeking similar prayers was still pending determination.
6. The Applicant urged that it is imperative to note that the Respondent proceeded to hear and determine the matter notwithstanding the fact that in his response to the Complaint dated 2nd August 2024 duly informed the Tribunal about the above-mentioned pending civil case between him and the Interested Party and they ignored the same thus causing him grave prejudice of double jeopardy. The decision also overlooked the importance of having a scrutiny of all material particulars surrounding the settlement of 2004. It denied him the opportunity to respond to the same for the complainant is at variance with the impugned decision. He believes that the Respondent's decision was therefore unreasonable to the extent that no reasonable and right-thinking official would have arrived at the same decision if faced with similar facts and circumstances.
7. The Applicant contends that the decision made on 15th February 2025 (withholding the sum of Kes. 62,915,950.00) was based on total misapprehension of the facts relating to the settlement of tender of year 2004, and therefore, a wrong decision was arrived at. Further, that the decision has the likelihood of trampling on his right to legal practice as an advocate and fair administrative action on the part of the Respondent. He maintains that the decision was made without following the due process of law by failing to seek for full material particulars and/or disclosure of the tender of 2004.
8. The Respondent was privy to information from the Complainant and in its finding that the Applicant Advocate was legally entitled to his professional fees. It was in a position to make this determination but neglected to do so and proceeded to condemn the Applicant. The Applicant argues that the complainant never adduced any supporting documents that he was eligible to be paid Kes. 62,915.950.00 and the complainant never submitted any decree from a Court or from the said Ministry that he was paid Kshs. 62.915,950.00.
9. Counsel urged that the Respondent ignored the Provisions of the Advocate's Act Cap. 16 Laws of Kenya; governing client and advocate's relationship. It failed to give consideration to the Complainant/Interested Party's admission in his supporting Affidavit that his partner had received over Kshs. 23 Million. It is his case that there was no documentary proof that a sum of Kshs. 62,915,950.00 was paid to the Respondent/Advocate on account of the complainant. The Respondent failed to act with impartiality by giving consideration to the complainant's alleged aged instead of considering the issues between advocates and client and therefore violated the provisions of Act 159(2) of the Constitution.
10. The Appellant contends that the Respondent acted in bad faith against the applicant/accused advocate when it brought forward a matter which had been scheduled for July, 2025 to February, 2025 for no reasonable cause. The Respondent failed to consider the Applicant's plea that the Complainant had never paid the Complainant was under an obligation to remit fees for services rendered to him for a period in excess of ten years. Additionally, that the Respondent ignored the Defence and/or Response duly submitted by the applicant. He stated that the principles of natural Justice demanding that a party be heard in his/her defence were not applied in the Respondent's decision of 10th February, 2025.
11. It is further his case that the Respondent never made any proper interrogation in order to establish the source of Kshs. 62.915,950.00 and further no documentary evidence was adduced that the applicant received a sum of Kshs. 62,915,950.00. That the Respondent erroneously applied the doctrine of standard of proof as defined in Common Law jurisprudence in order to assist the Complainant for the matter before it is based on facts as to whether the Accused Advocate indeed received a sum complained of Kshs. 62,915,950.00.
12. The Applicant’s case is that the Respondent erred in both law and fact when they made a finding by relying on an alleged letter of 25th April, 2022 that Kshs. 85,934,255.10 was paid to the Accused Advocates/Applicants Bank as partial Settlement of the tender value. Further, that the Respondent erred in law and fact that an alleged tender of year 2004 was confirmed in Milimani Commercial High Court Civil Case No. 148 of 2012 and allegedly out of which Kshs. 22,820,000/= was remitted to the Complainant. The Applicant argues that the Respondent ignored the principal fact that the Complainant/Respondent never lodged a Client Advocates Bill of Costs wherein he would have been under an obligation to supply relevant documents to support his Claim for Kshs. 62,915,950.00.
13. He argues that the Respondent occasioned a miscarriage of justice by failing to call for a Statement of Account detailing as to how the sum of Kshs, 62,915,950.00 and it instead created inconsistency by relying on Milimani Commercial High Court No. 148 OF 2012 wherein an alleged sum of Kshs. 22,820.000/= was paid to the complainant.
14. It is further his case that the Respondent erred in law when it neglected to evaluate the Accused Advocates/Applicants clear demonstration regarding the payment of Kshs. Kshs. 65,000,000/= and Kshs. 85,935,255.00 indicating that no tender proceeds were paid to him. He argues that the Respondent neglected its legal duty under the Advocate's Act to make a clear and unequivocal finding on the sum of Kshs. 62,915,950.00 as pertains to its source, documents and as to when the same was paid, and who paid the same and, on the subject, matter for the said payment.
15. He argues that the Respondent Tribunal erred in law when it arrived at a conclusion that "for the avoidance of doubt, the advocate is at liberty to have his bill taxed for purposes of ascertaining the legal fees due to him for the services rendered to the complainant. such monies shall be set off against the amounts of monies that the Advocate has been convicted of withholding". Additionally, that the Respondent neglected to make a clear finding on the actual amount complained of with supporting documents and the actual date when the said money was received: and thereafter make a determination of the legal fees due to the advocate.
EX PARTE APPLICANTS’ SUBMISSIONS
16. Counsel for the Ex Parte Applicant laid down a background of the matter and identified the issues for determination which he then proceeded to submit on.
17. On whether the Application meets the threshold for a Judicial Review, Counsel urged that the decision by the Respondent dated 10th February 2025 was unlawful, unreasonable, irrational and ultra vires, hence is a perfect candidate for quashing orders to issue. He urged that it is crucial to note that the gist of the Respondent's decision is that it found the Ex parte Applicant culpable for withholding funds, amounting to about Kshs. 60 million, belonging to the Interested Party. That this finding while not only being beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. is also in breach of the provision on double jeopardy as the Interested Party had already lodged a similar law suit before the High Court seeking similar reliefs. Further, that the decision of the Respondent was made without paying due regard to the evidence tendered or not tendered before it by the parties. In appreciating this issue, he urged the court to be guided by the finding by Justice L.L. Naikuni in Republic v Principal Kadhi. Mombasa Ex-parties Alibhai Adamali Dar & 2 others; Murtaza Turabali Patel (Interested Party) [2022] KEELC 371 (KLR) and further submitted that the Ex-parte Applicant has surmounted all the prerequisites to entitle it to the orders of certiorari sought in the Application.
18. Counsel urged that firstly, it has been explained in detail in the pleadings on how the Respondent conducted itself during the proceedings before delivering its judgment on 10/02/2025 as well as after that, during supposed mitigation to show that the decision as well as the upcoming sentencing is a choreographed charade, and a premeditated decision, hence not measuring up to the principle of fair hearing.
19. On whether the Disciplinary Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction, the Exparte Applicant submitted that it acted beyond its abrogated powers and buttressed this submission by relying on the decision in Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1 where the Court of Appeal laid the law on jurisdiction. He posited that the issue of jurisdiction herein is both pecuniary in nature and on the complaint before the Respondent being sub judice and against the doctrine of double jeopardy, as the Interested Party filed an Originating Summons dated 26th March 2024, seeking orders that the Court direct Advocate Maosa Thomas Gichana Nyakambi T/A Maosa & Co. Advocates to pay to the Applicant the sum of Kshs. 62,915,950.00), being the alleged balance of the decretal sum due in Misc. Civil Suit (OS) No. 148 of 2012. He further submitted that the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal was properly informed of the existence of the High Court proceedings concerning the same issues and parties, and proceeded with the complaint despite this, finding the Ex parte Applicant liable.
20. Counsel submitted that it is trite law that the Disciplinary Tribunal is established under Section 51 (I) of the Advocates Act with powers to hear complaints as outlined in Sections 60 and 60A of the same Act. Furthermore, the parameters of the body's capacities are outlined in the Law Society Act. Section 60(4)(e), limits the Tribunal's pecuniary powers to compensation not exceeding Five Million Kenya Shillings (Kshs. 5,000,000) and provides that such advocate pays to the aggrieved person compensation or reimbursement not exceeding five million shillings. Counsel submitted that Section 60 of the Advocates' Act is clear that the Disciplinary Tribunal cannot order compensation or reimbursement of sums exceeding the statutory amount of Kshs. 5,000,000/-. The Disciplinary Tribunal was privy to the amount sought as it was outlined in the Affidavit of Complaint, yet it proceeded to entertain and determine the same matter. Therefore, the Disciplinary Tribunal rendered a determination which is beyond its statutory pecuniary jurisdiction hence ultra vires and a nullity.
21. Counsel urged that the Exparte Applicant is guided by Section 9 of The Fair Administrative Action Rules 2024 and further, that Section 21 of The Fair Administrative Action Rules 2024 states that The High Court, Employment and Labour Relations Court and Environment and Land Court shall have the power to hear and determine, at first instance or on appeal, any Judicial Review Application within the respective areas of jurisdiction of the courts based on the subject matter and substance of the Application. Counsel maintained that the Tribunal erred in finding the Exparte Applicant liable for the reason that soon after filing the High Court suit, the Interested Party, thereafter, approached the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal by way of a Complaint dated 25th March 2024, supported by an Affidavit of Complaint sworn on 22nd March 2024, seeking that the Tribunal compel the Ex parte Applicant to refund the sum of Kshs. 62,915,950.00. He cited the decision of Justice Weldon Korir in Republic v Disciplinary Committee Law Society of Kenya & another Ex-parte Charles Lutta Kasamani [2015] KEHC 7508 (KLR) in support of the submission.
22. Counsel submitted that since Jurisdiction is imperative and any determination made in excess of jurisdiction is illegal, the legal consequence is that the Disciplinary Tribunal's decision should be declared a nullity and properly quashed. He reiterated that the proceedings before the Respondent as well as its impugned decision were unlawful for being per-incuriam sound judicial precedent, as shown in the Republic v Disciplinary Committee Law Society of Kenya & another Ex-parte Charles Lutta Kasamani [supra] case.
23. On whether the Tribunal erred in finding the Exparte Applicant liable, counsel submitted that as can be seen from the pleadings, the ex parte Applicant has raised issues on how the Respondent arrived at its decision against him in spite of the deficiency of the information produced before it. He contends that the Interested Party never furnished particulars of the tender from which he claimed to have been entitled to the hefty amounts he is claiming. That in short, the Ex Parte Applicant was raising the issue of the Complainant moving the Respondent Tribunal to help it enforce an illegal benefit he had allegedly received from the Government. The Tribunal in this matter was exercising judicial powers hence had a mandatory duty to prevent its processes from being utilized to further a manifest illegality, especially one which is brought to its attention. Counsel submitted that it is trite law that a court of law cannot sanction an illegality and that once an illegality has been brought to its attention must act to remedy the same. He placed reliance on the cases of Board of Trustees National Social Security Fund v Michael Mwalo [2015] KECA 782 (KLR) and Makula International Ltd Vs His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11 in this regard. He urged that the Ex Parte Applicant, in his response before the Respondent Tribunal, demonstrated in detail how the court decision from which the Complaint emanated issued a decree for the payment of Kshs. 110, 061,691/= before his then advocate, Ezekiel Wafula entered into a consent with the Attorney General reducing the amount. Attempts to reverse the said consent decree before the High Court failed and the Government proceeded to release the money in batches to the Applicant. However, the Interested Party inexplicably obtained further payments from the Government despite the fact that the decree was limited to 65 million shillings and there being no other contract supporting such disbursements. Counsel submitted that it is evident that the Respondent ignored this crucial information presented before it in contravention of the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act and the Constitution.
24. Counsel reiterated that the Respondent's decision is a ripe candidate for merit review in order to deliver actual justice between the parties, especially the Ex parte Applicant who has had his reputation soiled at the altar of a manifestly prejudiced Respondent. He placed reliance on the holding in Muturi v Director, Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) & another [2026] KECA 134 (KLR). Additionally, that the Court has held in various decisions including in Suchan Investment Ltd vs Ministry of Natural Heritage Culture 3 others [2016] eKLR, Judicial Service Commission another vs Njora [2021] KECA 366 (KLR) and Kabundu another vs County Government of Mombasa; Clerk County Assembly of Mombasa 7 others (Interested Parties) [2023] KECA 1330 (KLR) that in appropriate cases and arising from the grounds for Judicial Review now set out in section 7 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, an element of merit review may be required in Judicial Review, particularly in examination of whether a decision or action by a public authority is the legal, constitutional and reasonable, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Kenya in Dande & others vs Inspector General, National Police Service & 5 others [2023] KESC 40 (KLR). Further, that the development of the jurisprudence to include merit review of impugned administrative decisions was also authoritatively held by the learned P. Kiage JA, with the concurrence of SG Kairu JA and F Sichale JA, in Judicial Service Commission & another v Njora [2021] KECA 366 (KLR).
25. Counsel urged that a merit review of the Interested Party's complaint before the Respondent will find that there was no case against the Ex Parte Applicant, but instead ought to have put in motion an inquiry into the illegalities he perpetuated against the public treasury by obtaining payments outside of and beyond the money the consent decree mandated to be paid out. He urged the court to quash the Tribunal's proceedings and determination as prayed for in the Application.
THE RESPONDENTS’ CASE
26. The Respondent filed a Grounds of Opposition to the Application on the following grounds:
1. That the Application is misconceived, totally incompetent, bad in law and an abuse of this Honorable Court’s process.
2. That the Application offends the provisions of Section 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act 2015 for failing to exhaust the available mechanisms for appeal;
3. That the Application further offends the provisions of Section 62 of the Advocate’s Act Cap 16, Laws of Kenya.
4. That the Applicant who duly took part in proceedings before the Respondent, has failed to follow laid down procedures by appealing the decision of the Respondent
5. That the Application is otherwise misconceived and should be dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
27. He raised a Notice of Preliminary Objection in the following lines; Chamber Summons Application dated 30th July, 2025 and the substantive Motion dated 22nd August, 2025 on the following grounds:
(i) The jurisdiction of this Honorable court in the exercise of Judicial Review jurisdiction as conferred by Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act Cap 26 Laws of Kenya is not to hear the merits of the dispute. Thus;
(a) That this is a civil dispute masquerading as a Judicial Review application as the averment that the Interested Party has not adduced any documentary evidence to prove the sum in issue being Kshs.62, 915,950.00 will require interrogation and a scrutiny into the documentation and material particulars presented by both parties to indeed ascertain whether the said amount in issue has indeed been proven, this indeed excludes this indeed excludes this division from entertaining this motion as it squarely looks at the process.
(b) That this motion is an appeal in disguise against the Judgment delivered by (The Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal) on 10th February, 2025, thus this court is not clothed with jurisdiction to determine the same.
(c) The entire Judicial Review Application is admittedly incompetent, bad in law, an afterthought, misadvised, frivolous, scandalous, and vexatious and an outright abuse of the court process and therefore only fit for dismissal with costs to the Interested Party.
(ii) That the instant judicial review application is premature and offends the doctrine of ripeness as the Respondent herein is yet to make the final reviewable order on mitigation and sentencing, which is the usually the final stage of the proceedings at the Tribunal.
a) The doctrine of ripeness instructs that courts should not intervene in ongoing administrative or tribunal proceedings until all available internal remedies have been exhausted and a final reviewable order is made.
THE INTERESTED PARTIES’ CASE
28. The interested party, Simpson Senda Kwayere, filed a Replying Affidavit dated 26th February 2026 where he denied all the allegations contained in the Notice of Motion, Chamber Summons, Statutory Statement, and the Affidavit in support sworn by Thomas N. Maosa on 30th July 2025, and the substantive motion dated 22nd August, 2025.
29. He deponed that judicial review is concerned with the decision making process, not with merits of the decision itself; therefore an averment that the Interested Party has not adduced any documentary evidence to prove the sum in issue being Kshs.62,915,950.00 is an invitation on this court to delve into the merits which will require interrogation and a scrutiny into the documentation and material particulars presented by both parties to indeed ascertain whether the said amount in issue has indeed been proven, this indeed excludes this division from entertaining this motion.
30. The deponent averred that this motion is an appeal against the Judgment delivered by (The Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal) on 10th February, 2025 masquerading as a Judicial Review application, thus this Court is not clothed with the jurisdiction to determined the same. He urged that the same is premature and offends the doctrine of ripeness as the Respondent herein is yet to make the final reviewable order on mitigation and sentencing, which is the usually the final stage of the proceedings at the Tribunal, that is due on 13th April, 2026.
31. The deponent averred that this motion is fatally defective as the Applicant has failed to adduce and or properly set out, the substantive grounds for grant of Judicial Review orders as required under Orders 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Further, that the jurisdiction of this court in exercise of Judicial Review as conferred by Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act Cap 26 Laws of Kenya has not been properly invoked. The deponent averred that it is vital to note that Mr. Maosa has not disputed owing me the monies in issue.
32. The deponent averred that he is a 70-year-old media consultant working with his business by the name Tele News Africa and Atlantic Region. That on or about 2002, through his business Tele News and Atlantic Region, he was given a tender by the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and East Africa Community. He went ahead and did the publication in Financial Times Magazine and after doing the publication, he made a script which was advertised on Super Sport TV for a period of over four (4) months. The advertisement was mainly done during the start and the end of the English Premier League Matches and the script was kept after the end of Premier league Matches and it later introduced during World Cup Matches. After doing all this, there emerged a tug of war as to who should pay him Kshs.12 million for the work done at the Ministry as there were three ministries such as Tourism, Trade and East Africa Community.
33. This prompted him to file a Civil Case Number 148 of 2012 between himself (Simpson Senda Kwayera) and the Honourable Attorney General and the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Trade at High Court through his lawyers then, E.K Wafula Advocates.
34. Through a court judgment of 24th July,2012 he was awarded damages in the sum of Kshs.12,000,000/= together with costs and interest thereon computed at the rate of 26% per annum with effect from the year 2004 till payment in full. Following the formal extraction of the decree and certificate of costs on 2nd August 2012, the same stood at a cumulative figure of Kshs.110,061,691.00(together with interest at 26% per annum thereon from April, 2004 until payment in full). Mr. Maosa was professionally retained after court judgment to pursue recovery of the Judgment sum.
35. The deponent averred that he then engaged Mr. Maosa’s services to recover from the Government Kshs.110,061,691.00 until payment in full. Mr. Maosa through his firm of Advocates, Maosa and Company Advocates came on record pursuant to leave of court issued on 23rd August 2013. He annexed and marked as SSK-1 a copy of the said consent order to come on record. Mr. Maosa collected the funds in three tranches at different intervals from the Ministry of East African Affairs, Commerce and Tourism-formerly Ministry of Tourism and on each occasion he would call the deponent and concur on the amount and accounts to which the funds would be disbursed to. The said payments came in piecemeal installments and as that happened interest at the rate of 26% per annum continued to accumulate on the balances. From the first two tranches, Mr. Maosa took a lion’s share by retaining a sum of over Kshs.50 million (which constituted more than 50% of the payments) purportedly as his legal fees. These payments were made by the Judgment debtor directly to his Account at Standard Chartered Bank where he held an Advocate-Client Account.
36. The deponent averred that however, the last payment of Kshs.85,735,949.79 that came on 12th July,2021 saw Mr. Maosa change tact. He became elusive and would not pick his calls which was extremely frustrating. He annexed and marked as SSK-2 a copy of a letter from the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife dated 25th April,2022 confirming that indeed the said decretal sum was paid out to the Respondent’s Bank Account M/s Thomas Maosa & Company Advocates on 12th July 2021 to the Bank Account Number 01003150013427.
37. The deponent averred that the Attorney General, Auditor General, Parliament, Minister for Finance, the Permanent Secretary, all advised the parent ministry that the remaining outstanding payment had to be paid at ago since the 26% interest being charged was draining government funds. They made arrangements to offset the funds at once through the 2021/2022 Budget. It is important to demonstrate that the aforesaid payments were processed legally and lawfully to wit; Mr. Maosa made the first move in initiating payment ofKshs.85,735,950 by directly engaging the Ministry; On 7th July,2020 vide a letter referenced TM/SSK/16/1 he wrote to the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife and stated that the outstanding amount due to the deponent was Kshs.74,000,000. This letter was a follow up of a meeting that had earlier on been held personally between the Hon. Safina Kwekwe Tsungu, CBS who was the Principal Secretary Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife and the said Mr. Thomas Maosa, the Respondent herein. He annexed and marked as SSK-3 a copy of the said letter.
38. The deponent averred that the said sum of Kshs.74,000,00 was not settled in the month of July 2020 as anticipated and therefore the same continued to attract interest at the rate of 26%. On 5th August 2020, Mr. Thomas Maosa through a letter referenced TM/SSK/20/1 wrote to the Chairman Public Accounts Committee requesting the matter to be referred to the Parliamentary Accounts Committee abbreviated as “PAC” for further deliberations and settlement of the pending claim. In the said letter, Mr. Maosa made extensive reference to a PAC meeting of 8th June,2020 where the issue of the pending claim had been discussed and the way forward agreed. He emphasized that the 8th June,2020 meeting was attended by key officials from the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife, including him in his capacity as his lawyer and therefore, wondered why payments had not been made notwithstanding an indication that a settlement had been reached. He attached and marked as SSK-4 a copy of the said letter dated 5th August,2020.
39. The deponent averred that there was all along indication from Mr. Maosa that the payment of Kshs.74,000,000 was going to be made in the year 2020; and as a result of that expectation, Mr. Maosa wrote to his Bank on 5th October 2020 through a letter referenced TM/SSK/15/11 and notified the bank of the impending payment in settlement of payments emanating from a Court Judgment delivered by the High Court in Nairobi High Court Civil Case Number 148 of 2012(O.S). He attached and marked as SSK-5 a copy of the said letter dated 5th October,2020. Equally, in the same year of 2020, on 19th June,2020, Mr. Maosa wrote a letter to the Principal Secretary Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife referenced TM/SSK/16/1 forwarding his bank details in preparation to receive the payments amounting to Kshs.74,000,000 emanating from Nrb HCCC Number 148 of 2012. He attached and marked as SSK-6 a copy of the said letter dated 19th June,2020. The payments did not come as anticipated, and Mr. Maosa did not give up in pursuit of the same on his behalf. He, on 24th February 2021 through a letter referenced TM/SG/C/2004 wrote to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife, Hon. Safina Kwekwe Tsungu, CBS and now made a claim for Kshs.85,735,949.79 the same having arisen from Kshs.74,000,000 due to interest at the rate of 26% p.a. He attached and marked as SSK-7 a copy of the said letter dated 24th February 2021.
40. The deponent averred that the new claim with enhanced interest triggered a lot of ac
[...truncated]
1) The Applicant will file and serve the Substantive Notice of Motion within 14 days.
2) Prayer number two of the Chamber Summons dated 31st July 2025 shall be heard alongside the Notice of Motion. This was the prayer seeking; THAT, the grant of leave do operate as a stay of execution of the Respondent's Decision dated 10-2-2025. and an its intended consequences pending the hearing and determination of this suit and/or further Orders of the Court. (It was actually prayer 3 of the Chamber Summons.)
2. The applicant thereafter filed the Notice of Motion dated 22nd August, 2025.
3. Prayer 2 of the Chamber Summons dated 31st July 2025 and the Notice of Motion date 22nd August, 2025 form the subject of this judgment. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant seeks the following orders : -
(i) That the Honourable Court be pleased to grant an Order of Certiorari to bring before the Honourable Court and quash the Decision of the Respondent dated 10th February 2025.
THE APPLICANTS CASE:
4. The Applicant is troubled because, according to him, the Respondent arrived at an unfair decision on 10th February, 2025 by condemning him for not accounting for and withholding a sum of KES. 62.915.950.00 as settlement of the Complainant's/Interested Party's tender of 2004 whose particulars and the extent of liability on his part were not availed before the Respondent and with no clear statement of account thereof. The impugned decision was ultra vires for being done without jurisdiction pursuant to Section 60 (4)(e) and 60(9) of the Advocates Act Cap. 16 Laws of Kenya.
5. He argues that the impugned decision was against his right to fair hearing, especially the right against being subjected to double jeopardy since it proceeded to hear and determine the said disciplinary cause while the Complainant's civil case against me in MILIMANI HCC SUIT (OS) NO. E063 OF 2024, seeking similar prayers was still pending determination.
6. The Applicant urged that it is imperative to note that the Respondent proceeded to hear and determine the matter notwithstanding the fact that in his response to the Complaint dated 2nd August 2024 duly informed the Tribunal about the above-mentioned pending civil case between him and the Interested Party and they ignored the same thus causing him grave prejudice of double jeopardy. The decision also overlooked the importance of having a scrutiny of all material particulars surrounding the settlement of 2004. It denied him the opportunity to respond to the same for the complainant is at variance with the impugned decision. He believes that the Respondent's decision was therefore unreasonable to the extent that no reasonable and right-thinking official would have arrived at the same decision if faced with similar facts and circumstances.
7. The Applicant contends that the decision made on 15th February 2025 (withholding the sum of Kes. 62,915,950.00) was based on total misapprehension of the facts relating to the settlement of tender of year 2004, and therefore, a wrong decision was arrived at. Further, that the decision has the likelihood of trampling on his right to legal practice as an advocate and fair administrative action on the part of the Respondent. He maintains that the decision was made without following the due process of law by failing to seek for full material particulars and/or disclosure of the tender of 2004.
8. The Respondent was privy to information from the Complainant and in its finding that the Applicant Advocate was legally entitled to his professional fees. It was in a position to make this determination but neglected to do so and proceeded to condemn the Applicant. The Applicant argues that the complainant never adduced any supporting documents that he was eligible to be paid Kes. 62,915.950.00 and the complainant never submitted any decree from a Court or from the said Ministry that he was paid Kshs. 62.915,950.00.
9. Counsel urged that the Respondent ignored the Provisions of the Advocate's Act Cap. 16 Laws of Kenya; governing client and advocate's relationship. It failed to give consideration to the Complainant/Interested Party's admission in his supporting Affidavit that his partner had received over Kshs. 23 Million. It is his case that there was no documentary proof that a sum of Kshs. 62,915,950.00 was paid to the Respondent/Advocate on account of the complainant. The Respondent failed to act with impartiality by giving consideration to the complainant's alleged aged instead of considering the issues between advocates and client and therefore violated the provisions of Act 159(2) of the Constitution.
10. The Appellant contends that the Respondent acted in bad faith against the applicant/accused advocate when it brought forward a matter which had been scheduled for July, 2025 to February, 2025 for no reasonable cause. The Respondent failed to consider the Applicant's plea that the Complainant had never paid the Complainant was under an obligation to remit fees for services rendered to him for a period in excess of ten years. Additionally, that the Respondent ignored the Defence and/or Response duly submitted by the applicant. He stated that the principles of natural Justice demanding that a party be heard in his/her defence were not applied in the Respondent's decision of 10th February, 2025.
11. It is further his case that the Respondent never made any proper interrogation in order to establish the source of Kshs. 62.915,950.00 and further no documentary evidence was adduced that the applicant received a sum of Kshs. 62,915,950.00. That the Respondent erroneously applied the doctrine of standard of proof as defined in Common Law jurisprudence in order to assist the Complainant for the matter before it is based on facts as to whether the Accused Advocate indeed received a sum complained of Kshs. 62,915,950.00.
12. The Applicant’s case is that the Respondent erred in both law and fact when they made a finding by relying on an alleged letter of 25th April, 2022 that Kshs. 85,934,255.10 was paid to the Accused Advocates/Applicants Bank as partial Settlement of the tender value. Further, that the Respondent erred in law and fact that an alleged tender of year 2004 was confirmed in Milimani Commercial High Court Civil Case No. 148 of 2012 and allegedly out of which Kshs. 22,820,000/= was remitted to the Complainant. The Applicant argues that the Respondent ignored the principal fact that the Complainant/Respondent never lodged a Client Advocates Bill of Costs wherein he would have been under an obligation to supply relevant documents to support his Claim for Kshs. 62,915,950.00.
13. He argues that the Respondent occasioned a miscarriage of justice by failing to call for a Statement of Account detailing as to how the sum of Kshs, 62,915,950.00 and it instead created inconsistency by relying on Milimani Commercial High Court No. 148 OF 2012 wherein an alleged sum of Kshs. 22,820.000/= was paid to the complainant.
14. It is further his case that the Respondent erred in law when it neglected to evaluate the Accused Advocates/Applicants clear demonstration regarding the payment of Kshs. Kshs. 65,000,000/= and Kshs. 85,935,255.00 indicating that no tender proceeds were paid to him. He argues that the Respondent neglected its legal duty under the Advocate's Act to make a clear and unequivocal finding on the sum of Kshs. 62,915,950.00 as pertains to its source, documents and as to when the same was paid, and who paid the same and, on the subject, matter for the said payment.
15. He argues that the Respondent Tribunal erred in law when it arrived at a conclusion that "for the avoidance of doubt, the advocate is at liberty to have his bill taxed for purposes of ascertaining the legal fees due to him for the services rendered to the complainant. such monies shall be set off against the amounts of monies that the Advocate has been convicted of withholding". Additionally, that the Respondent neglected to make a clear finding on the actual amount complained of with supporting documents and the actual date when the said money was received: and thereafter make a determination of the legal fees due to the advocate.
EX PARTE APPLICANTS’ SUBMISSIONS
16. Counsel for the Ex Parte Applicant laid down a background of the matter and identified the issues for determination which he then proceeded to submit on.
17. On whether the Application meets the threshold for a Judicial Review, Counsel urged that the decision by the Respondent dated 10th February 2025 was unlawful, unreasonable, irrational and ultra vires, hence is a perfect candidate for quashing orders to issue. He urged that it is crucial to note that the gist of the Respondent's decision is that it found the Ex parte Applicant culpable for withholding funds, amounting to about Kshs. 60 million, belonging to the Interested Party. That this finding while not only being beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. is also in breach of the provision on double jeopardy as the Interested Party had already lodged a similar law suit before the High Court seeking similar reliefs. Further, that the decision of the Respondent was made without paying due regard to the evidence tendered or not tendered before it by the parties. In appreciating this issue, he urged the court to be guided by the finding by Justice L.L. Naikuni in Republic v Principal Kadhi. Mombasa Ex-parties Alibhai Adamali Dar & 2 others; Murtaza Turabali Patel (Interested Party) [2022] KEELC 371 (KLR) and further submitted that the Ex-parte Applicant has surmounted all the prerequisites to entitle it to the orders of certiorari sought in the Application.
18. Counsel urged that firstly, it has been explained in detail in the pleadings on how the Respondent conducted itself during the proceedings before delivering its judgment on 10/02/2025 as well as after that, during supposed mitigation to show that the decision as well as the upcoming sentencing is a choreographed charade, and a premeditated decision, hence not measuring up to the principle of fair hearing.
19. On whether the Disciplinary Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction, the Exparte Applicant submitted that it acted beyond its abrogated powers and buttressed this submission by relying on the decision in Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1 where the Court of Appeal laid the law on jurisdiction. He posited that the issue of jurisdiction herein is both pecuniary in nature and on the complaint before the Respondent being sub judice and against the doctrine of double jeopardy, as the Interested Party filed an Originating Summons dated 26th March 2024, seeking orders that the Court direct Advocate Maosa Thomas Gichana Nyakambi T/A Maosa & Co. Advocates to pay to the Applicant the sum of Kshs. 62,915,950.00), being the alleged balance of the decretal sum due in Misc. Civil Suit (OS) No. 148 of 2012. He further submitted that the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal was properly informed of the existence of the High Court proceedings concerning the same issues and parties, and proceeded with the complaint despite this, finding the Ex parte Applicant liable.
20. Counsel submitted that it is trite law that the Disciplinary Tribunal is established under Section 51 (I) of the Advocates Act with powers to hear complaints as outlined in Sections 60 and 60A of the same Act. Furthermore, the parameters of the body's capacities are outlined in the Law Society Act. Section 60(4)(e), limits the Tribunal's pecuniary powers to compensation not exceeding Five Million Kenya Shillings (Kshs. 5,000,000) and provides that such advocate pays to the aggrieved person compensation or reimbursement not exceeding five million shillings. Counsel submitted that Section 60 of the Advocates' Act is clear that the Disciplinary Tribunal cannot order compensation or reimbursement of sums exceeding the statutory amount of Kshs. 5,000,000/-. The Disciplinary Tribunal was privy to the amount sought as it was outlined in the Affidavit of Complaint, yet it proceeded to entertain and determine the same matter. Therefore, the Disciplinary Tribunal rendered a determination which is beyond its statutory pecuniary jurisdiction hence ultra vires and a nullity.
21. Counsel urged that the Exparte Applicant is guided by Section 9 of The Fair Administrative Action Rules 2024 and further, that Section 21 of The Fair Administrative Action Rules 2024 states that The High Court, Employment and Labour Relations Court and Environment and Land Court shall have the power to hear and determine, at first instance or on appeal, any Judicial Review Application within the respective areas of jurisdiction of the courts based on the subject matter and substance of the Application. Counsel maintained that the Tribunal erred in finding the Exparte Applicant liable for the reason that soon after filing the High Court suit, the Interested Party, thereafter, approached the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal by way of a Complaint dated 25th March 2024, supported by an Affidavit of Complaint sworn on 22nd March 2024, seeking that the Tribunal compel the Ex parte Applicant to refund the sum of Kshs. 62,915,950.00. He cited the decision of Justice Weldon Korir in Republic v Disciplinary Committee Law Society of Kenya & another Ex-parte Charles Lutta Kasamani [2015] KEHC 7508 (KLR) in support of the submission.
22. Counsel submitted that since Jurisdiction is imperative and any determination made in excess of jurisdiction is illegal, the legal consequence is that the Disciplinary Tribunal's decision should be declared a nullity and properly quashed. He reiterated that the proceedings before the Respondent as well as its impugned decision were unlawful for being per-incuriam sound judicial precedent, as shown in the Republic v Disciplinary Committee Law Society of Kenya & another Ex-parte Charles Lutta Kasamani [supra] case.
23. On whether the Tribunal erred in finding the Exparte Applicant liable, counsel submitted that as can be seen from the pleadings, the ex parte Applicant has raised issues on how the Respondent arrived at its decision against him in spite of the deficiency of the information produced before it. He contends that the Interested Party never furnished particulars of the tender from which he claimed to have been entitled to the hefty amounts he is claiming. That in short, the Ex Parte Applicant was raising the issue of the Complainant moving the Respondent Tribunal to help it enforce an illegal benefit he had allegedly received from the Government. The Tribunal in this matter was exercising judicial powers hence had a mandatory duty to prevent its processes from being utilized to further a manifest illegality, especially one which is brought to its attention. Counsel submitted that it is trite law that a court of law cannot sanction an illegality and that once an illegality has been brought to its attention must act to remedy the same. He placed reliance on the cases of Board of Trustees National Social Security Fund v Michael Mwalo [2015] KECA 782 (KLR) and Makula International Ltd Vs His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11 in this regard. He urged that the Ex Parte Applicant, in his response before the Respondent Tribunal, demonstrated in detail how the court decision from which the Complaint emanated issued a decree for the payment of Kshs. 110, 061,691/= before his then advocate, Ezekiel Wafula entered into a consent with the Attorney General reducing the amount. Attempts to reverse the said consent decree before the High Court failed and the Government proceeded to release the money in batches to the Applicant. However, the Interested Party inexplicably obtained further payments from the Government despite the fact that the decree was limited to 65 million shillings and there being no other contract supporting such disbursements. Counsel submitted that it is evident that the Respondent ignored this crucial information presented before it in contravention of the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act and the Constitution.
24. Counsel reiterated that the Respondent's decision is a ripe candidate for merit review in order to deliver actual justice between the parties, especially the Ex parte Applicant who has had his reputation soiled at the altar of a manifestly prejudiced Respondent. He placed reliance on the holding in Muturi v Director, Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) & another [2026] KECA 134 (KLR). Additionally, that the Court has held in various decisions including in Suchan Investment Ltd vs Ministry of Natural Heritage Culture 3 others [2016] eKLR, Judicial Service Commission another vs Njora [2021] KECA 366 (KLR) and Kabundu another vs County Government of Mombasa; Clerk County Assembly of Mombasa 7 others (Interested Parties) [2023] KECA 1330 (KLR) that in appropriate cases and arising from the grounds for Judicial Review now set out in section 7 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, an element of merit review may be required in Judicial Review, particularly in examination of whether a decision or action by a public authority is the legal, constitutional and reasonable, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Kenya in Dande & others vs Inspector General, National Police Service & 5 others [2023] KESC 40 (KLR). Further, that the development of the jurisprudence to include merit review of impugned administrative decisions was also authoritatively held by the learned P. Kiage JA, with the concurrence of SG Kairu JA and F Sichale JA, in Judicial Service Commission & another v Njora [2021] KECA 366 (KLR).
25. Counsel urged that a merit review of the Interested Party's complaint before the Respondent will find that there was no case against the Ex Parte Applicant, but instead ought to have put in motion an inquiry into the illegalities he perpetuated against the public treasury by obtaining payments outside of and beyond the money the consent decree mandated to be paid out. He urged the court to quash the Tribunal's proceedings and determination as prayed for in the Application.
THE RESPONDENTS’ CASE
26. The Respondent filed a Grounds of Opposition to the Application on the following grounds:
1. That the Application is misconceived, totally incompetent, bad in law and an abuse of this Honorable Court’s process.
2. That the Application offends the provisions of Section 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act 2015 for failing to exhaust the available mechanisms for appeal;
3. That the Application further offends the provisions of Section 62 of the Advocate’s Act Cap 16, Laws of Kenya.
4. That the Applicant who duly took part in proceedings before the Respondent, has failed to follow laid down procedures by appealing the decision of the Respondent
5. That the Application is otherwise misconceived and should be dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
27. He raised a Notice of Preliminary Objection in the following lines; Chamber Summons Application dated 30th July, 2025 and the substantive Motion dated 22nd August, 2025 on the following grounds:
(i) The jurisdiction of this Honorable court in the exercise of Judicial Review jurisdiction as conferred by Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act Cap 26 Laws of Kenya is not to hear the merits of the dispute. Thus;
(a) That this is a civil dispute masquerading as a Judicial Review application as the averment that the Interested Party has not adduced any documentary evidence to prove the sum in issue being Kshs.62, 915,950.00 will require interrogation and a scrutiny into the documentation and material particulars presented by both parties to indeed ascertain whether the said amount in issue has indeed been proven, this indeed excludes this indeed excludes this division from entertaining this motion as it squarely looks at the process.
(b) That this motion is an appeal in disguise against the Judgment delivered by (The Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal) on 10th February, 2025, thus this court is not clothed with jurisdiction to determine the same.
(c) The entire Judicial Review Application is admittedly incompetent, bad in law, an afterthought, misadvised, frivolous, scandalous, and vexatious and an outright abuse of the court process and therefore only fit for dismissal with costs to the Interested Party.
(ii) That the instant judicial review application is premature and offends the doctrine of ripeness as the Respondent herein is yet to make the final reviewable order on mitigation and sentencing, which is the usually the final stage of the proceedings at the Tribunal.
a) The doctrine of ripeness instructs that courts should not intervene in ongoing administrative or tribunal proceedings until all available internal remedies have been exhausted and a final reviewable order is made.
THE INTERESTED PARTIES’ CASE
28. The interested party, Simpson Senda Kwayere, filed a Replying Affidavit dated 26th February 2026 where he denied all the allegations contained in the Notice of Motion, Chamber Summons, Statutory Statement, and the Affidavit in support sworn by Thomas N. Maosa on 30th July 2025, and the substantive motion dated 22nd August, 2025.
29. He deponed that judicial review is concerned with the decision making process, not with merits of the decision itself; therefore an averment that the Interested Party has not adduced any documentary evidence to prove the sum in issue being Kshs.62,915,950.00 is an invitation on this court to delve into the merits which will require interrogation and a scrutiny into the documentation and material particulars presented by both parties to indeed ascertain whether the said amount in issue has indeed been proven, this indeed excludes this division from entertaining this motion.
30. The deponent averred that this motion is an appeal against the Judgment delivered by (The Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal) on 10th February, 2025 masquerading as a Judicial Review application, thus this Court is not clothed with the jurisdiction to determined the same. He urged that the same is premature and offends the doctrine of ripeness as the Respondent herein is yet to make the final reviewable order on mitigation and sentencing, which is the usually the final stage of the proceedings at the Tribunal, that is due on 13th April, 2026.
31. The deponent averred that this motion is fatally defective as the Applicant has failed to adduce and or properly set out, the substantive grounds for grant of Judicial Review orders as required under Orders 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Further, that the jurisdiction of this court in exercise of Judicial Review as conferred by Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act Cap 26 Laws of Kenya has not been properly invoked. The deponent averred that it is vital to note that Mr. Maosa has not disputed owing me the monies in issue.
32. The deponent averred that he is a 70-year-old media consultant working with his business by the name Tele News Africa and Atlantic Region. That on or about 2002, through his business Tele News and Atlantic Region, he was given a tender by the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and East Africa Community. He went ahead and did the publication in Financial Times Magazine and after doing the publication, he made a script which was advertised on Super Sport TV for a period of over four (4) months. The advertisement was mainly done during the start and the end of the English Premier League Matches and the script was kept after the end of Premier league Matches and it later introduced during World Cup Matches. After doing all this, there emerged a tug of war as to who should pay him Kshs.12 million for the work done at the Ministry as there were three ministries such as Tourism, Trade and East Africa Community.
33. This prompted him to file a Civil Case Number 148 of 2012 between himself (Simpson Senda Kwayera) and the Honourable Attorney General and the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Trade at High Court through his lawyers then, E.K Wafula Advocates.
34. Through a court judgment of 24th July,2012 he was awarded damages in the sum of Kshs.12,000,000/= together with costs and interest thereon computed at the rate of 26% per annum with effect from the year 2004 till payment in full. Following the formal extraction of the decree and certificate of costs on 2nd August 2012, the same stood at a cumulative figure of Kshs.110,061,691.00(together with interest at 26% per annum thereon from April, 2004 until payment in full). Mr. Maosa was professionally retained after court judgment to pursue recovery of the Judgment sum.
35. The deponent averred that he then engaged Mr. Maosa’s services to recover from the Government Kshs.110,061,691.00 until payment in full. Mr. Maosa through his firm of Advocates, Maosa and Company Advocates came on record pursuant to leave of court issued on 23rd August 2013. He annexed and marked as SSK-1 a copy of the said consent order to come on record. Mr. Maosa collected the funds in three tranches at different intervals from the Ministry of East African Affairs, Commerce and Tourism-formerly Ministry of Tourism and on each occasion he would call the deponent and concur on the amount and accounts to which the funds would be disbursed to. The said payments came in piecemeal installments and as that happened interest at the rate of 26% per annum continued to accumulate on the balances. From the first two tranches, Mr. Maosa took a lion’s share by retaining a sum of over Kshs.50 million (which constituted more than 50% of the payments) purportedly as his legal fees. These payments were made by the Judgment debtor directly to his Account at Standard Chartered Bank where he held an Advocate-Client Account.
36. The deponent averred that however, the last payment of Kshs.85,735,949.79 that came on 12th July,2021 saw Mr. Maosa change tact. He became elusive and would not pick his calls which was extremely frustrating. He annexed and marked as SSK-2 a copy of a letter from the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife dated 25th April,2022 confirming that indeed the said decretal sum was paid out to the Respondent’s Bank Account M/s Thomas Maosa & Company Advocates on 12th July 2021 to the Bank Account Number 01003150013427.
37. The deponent averred that the Attorney General, Auditor General, Parliament, Minister for Finance, the Permanent Secretary, all advised the parent ministry that the remaining outstanding payment had to be paid at ago since the 26% interest being charged was draining government funds. They made arrangements to offset the funds at once through the 2021/2022 Budget. It is important to demonstrate that the aforesaid payments were processed legally and lawfully to wit; Mr. Maosa made the first move in initiating payment ofKshs.85,735,950 by directly engaging the Ministry; On 7th July,2020 vide a letter referenced TM/SSK/16/1 he wrote to the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife and stated that the outstanding amount due to the deponent was Kshs.74,000,000. This letter was a follow up of a meeting that had earlier on been held personally between the Hon. Safina Kwekwe Tsungu, CBS who was the Principal Secretary Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife and the said Mr. Thomas Maosa, the Respondent herein. He annexed and marked as SSK-3 a copy of the said letter.
38. The deponent averred that the said sum of Kshs.74,000,00 was not settled in the month of July 2020 as anticipated and therefore the same continued to attract interest at the rate of 26%. On 5th August 2020, Mr. Thomas Maosa through a letter referenced TM/SSK/20/1 wrote to the Chairman Public Accounts Committee requesting the matter to be referred to the Parliamentary Accounts Committee abbreviated as “PAC” for further deliberations and settlement of the pending claim. In the said letter, Mr. Maosa made extensive reference to a PAC meeting of 8th June,2020 where the issue of the pending claim had been discussed and the way forward agreed. He emphasized that the 8th June,2020 meeting was attended by key officials from the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife, including him in his capacity as his lawyer and therefore, wondered why payments had not been made notwithstanding an indication that a settlement had been reached. He attached and marked as SSK-4 a copy of the said letter dated 5th August,2020.
39. The deponent averred that there was all along indication from Mr. Maosa that the payment of Kshs.74,000,000 was going to be made in the year 2020; and as a result of that expectation, Mr. Maosa wrote to his Bank on 5th October 2020 through a letter referenced TM/SSK/15/11 and notified the bank of the impending payment in settlement of payments emanating from a Court Judgment delivered by the High Court in Nairobi High Court Civil Case Number 148 of 2012(O.S). He attached and marked as SSK-5 a copy of the said letter dated 5th October,2020. Equally, in the same year of 2020, on 19th June,2020, Mr. Maosa wrote a letter to the Principal Secretary Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife referenced TM/SSK/16/1 forwarding his bank details in preparation to receive the payments amounting to Kshs.74,000,000 emanating from Nrb HCCC Number 148 of 2012. He attached and marked as SSK-6 a copy of the said letter dated 19th June,2020. The payments did not come as anticipated, and Mr. Maosa did not give up in pursuit of the same on his behalf. He, on 24th February 2021 through a letter referenced TM/SG/C/2004 wrote to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife, Hon. Safina Kwekwe Tsungu, CBS and now made a claim for Kshs.85,735,949.79 the same having arisen from Kshs.74,000,000 due to interest at the rate of 26% p.a. He attached and marked as SSK-7 a copy of the said letter dated 24th February 2021.
40. The deponent averred that the new claim with enhanced interest triggered a lot of ac
[...truncated]