Introduction
1. The Petitioner, in the Petition dated 2 nd February 2026 alleges that current leadership of the 3 rd Respondent, which includes the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent, has been awash with reported scandals and alleged infringements of constitutional rights.
2. Regarding the 1 st Respondent, the Petitioner averred that she accepted, contrary to the constitutional oath of office, an appointment to an illegally constituted Taskforce by the government whereas the 2 nd Respondent, is alleged to have played a role in the ABNO IT tender scandal, in which it is claimed that his firm awarded the tender to a client of the firm.
3. The Petitioner further assails the Respondents stating that they neglected the core mandate of their duty as leaders and member welfare.
4. Further, they are accused of mismanagement and having misplaced priorities by prioritizing extravagant events over substantive welfare programs.
5. In addition, the 2 nd Respondent is alleged to have be involved in the corruption of the electoral process by engaging in smear campaigns against his opponent, Peter Wanyama Manyonge.
6. In sum, the Petitioner asserts that the Respondents conduct is in direct violation of Articles 10, 27, 47, 73, 75 and 81(e) of the Constitution.
The Application
7. The Petitioner in the accompanying Notice of Motion Application to the Petition of similar date seeks orders that:
i. Spent.
ii. Pending the hearing and determination of this Application inter partes, a temporary conservatory order be issued restraining the 2 nd Respondent, the Vice President of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), from presenting himself, campaigning, or in any manner whatsoever contesting for the position of President of the Law Society of Kenya in the scheduled 2026 LSK elections.
iii. Pending the hearing and determination of this Petition, a conservatory order be issued suspending the candidacy of the 2 nd Respondent in the LSK Presidential election, and directing the LSK Electoral Board and any relevant agency to exclude his name from the ballot, list of candidates, and all campaign material.
iv. The Court be pleased to issue such further or other orders as it may deem just and expedient in the circumstances of this matter.
v. The costs of this application be provided for.
8. The application is supported by the Petitioner’s affidavit, sworn on even date and the grounds on the face of the application.
9. He depones that he voted for the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents’ owing to their impeccable manifesto, however soon after, the reality of their leadership became clear. He avers that during the first Annual General Meeting (AGM), several key motions were hastily dismissed such as those touching on the full audit of the 3 rd Respondent’s funds. This was followed by the 1 st Respondent’s appointment in the purported illegal taskforce by the government and the 2 nd Respondent’s involvement in the ABNO scandal.
10. He contends that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents have never taken responsibility for their actions but have instead proceeded to work together to secure the 2 nd Respondent’s election in the forthcoming elections on 19 th February 2026.In addition, the 2 nd Respondent is accused of engaging in a smear campaign against his opponent Peter Manyonge Wanyama.
11. He postulates that the Respondents actions are driven by their corrupt fixation to protect the corrupt faction that is responsible for the misallocation of public interest litigation briefs to friends of the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents. Additionally, he asserts that the two are engaged in sensationalist matters at the expense of important member welfare programs.
12. The Petitioner depones that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent also enticed one, Patroba Michieka Omwenga, the administrator of the Advocates 2.0 Hub Whatsapp group, with alcohol due to his great influence in the group. He avers that this is despite him being freshly out of rehab and which caused the Petitioner his mentor, mental anguish due to the year they had journeyed to ensure he remains sober.
13. The Petitioner states that his attempts to reach out to the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent have been futile hence filing of this suit. He contends that unless these orders are granted, the 3 rd Respondent’s electoral process will be irredeemably tainted and Petition rendered nugatory. He urges thus that it is in public interest and preservation of the rule of law that this Court intervene to protect the credibility of the 3 rd Respondent.
1 st Respondent’s Case
14. The 1 st Respondent in opposition to the Petitioner’s application filed her Replying Affidavit sworn on 12 th February 2026.
15. She depones that the application which seeks conservatory orders against the 1 st Respondent’s candidacy seeks no orders against her.
16. She contends however that the Petitioner has made adverse claims against her leadership of the 3 rd Respondent. She notes that none of the claims are properly particularized and substantiated by cogent evidence. On this basis, she advances that the application is rendered frivolous, vexatious and fails to meet the threshold for grant of conservatory orders.
17. Further to this, she asserts that the Petitioner’s affidavit is scandalous as contains falsehoods which are not only disparaging but also defamatory with the intention of prejudicing the Respondents and with no bearing to the issues raised in the Petition.
18. In view of the foregoing she adjudges the application as premature, defective and an abuse of the Court process thus should be dismissed.
2 nd Respondent’s Case
19. The 2 nd Respondent also opposing the Application filed his Replying Affidavit sworn on 12 th February 2026.
20. On the onset, he avers that the application sponsored by his opponents is a political agenda against his candidature, as part of the smear campaign against him due to his popularity and acceptance by majority of the advocates. He points out that this is made manifest by the fact that the Petitioner is a supporter of his competitor, Peter Manyonge Wanyama.
21. He exposes that the Petitioner is on a fishing expedition with the intention of stopping his candidature as is evident from his prior suit in HCCHR Pet. Misc.No. E010 of 2026 which was dismissed by Hon. Justice Mwamuye on 2 nd February 2026.
22. He depones that contrary to the Petitioner’s allegations, the 3 rd Respondent’s procurement process is not within the mandate of the Council members as the same is solely vested on the Secretariat.
23. Furthermore, he argues that the issues raised cannot be addressed by this Court as the Petitioner has not addressed these concerns with the 3 rd Respondent’s Elections Board first.
24. He equally states that the Petitioner has been seeking to extort the Respondents Ksh.100, 000 which demonstrates that his sole purpose in these proceedings is purely personal and transactional. Further to this, his allegations are attacked for lacking any evidence in support.
25. He decries that issuance of the conservatory orders will be extremely prejudicial to him and an injustice as will deny him the right to participate in the elections which he has spent time and resources to prepare for. Moreover, he postulates that this will encourage future aspirants to bring unsubstantiated allegations against candidates in a bid to settle political scores. He implores this Court to therefore guard against this and dismiss the application.
3 rd Respondent’s Case
26. On 12 th February 2026, the 3 rd Respondent through its Chief Executive Officer, Florence Muturi filed its Replying Affidavit. She contends that the application is an abuse of the Court process and lacks merit.
27. She depones that the elections scheduled for 19 th February 2026 are at an advanced stage with the ballot papers having been already printed and the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) commissioned to oversee the process.
28. She informs that the members in the Special General Meeting held on 3 rd October 2025 approved and passed the resolution that the IEBC would be the electoral body for its elections for the period 2026 to 2028. The vacancy notices were soon thereafter issued calling for nominations for various elective positions.
29. She avers that among the candidates who duly submitted their nomination forms was the 2 nd Respondent. She states that there exists no pending suit or complaint contesting the validity of the 2 nd Respondent’s nomination.
30. She depones that the election campaigns have been ongoing for the last couple of months yet this application has been filed merely 2 weeks to the scheduled election date. According to her the prayers sought to restrain the 2 nd Respondent from vying are overtaken by events, impractical and incapable of enforcement at this late stage.
31. She contends that grant of the orders would not only occasion prejudice to the Respondents but also the members of the 3 rd Respondent who are not enjoined in this suit.
32. She avers that the Petitioner’s allegations are speculative, unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence. That said, she avers that the Petitioner neglected the 3 rd Respondent’s established internal dispute resolution mechanism before filing this suit.
33. In view of the foregoing the application is deemed premature with the sole aim of derailing a lawful electoral exercise. Considering this, she urges the Court to dismiss this application.
The Preliminary Objections
1 st and 2 nd Respondents’
34. These Respondents in rejoinder filed their Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 9 th February 2026 on the basis that:
i. This Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition as it substantively relates to the qualification of the 2 nd Respondent to participate in the election for President of the Law Society of Kenya, which mandate is vested in the Law Society of Kenya Elections Board established in accordance with Regulation 27(1) of the Law Society of Kenya (General) Regulations, 2020.
ii. The Petition offends the principle of exhaustion of other remedies as the Petitioner failed to ventilate his grievances through the Law Society of Kenya Elections Board before approaching this Court.
iii. The Petition offends the principle of constitutional avoidance as it presents as constitutional issues matters that could otherwise be adjudicated as ordinary disputes on eligibility to contest in the Law Society of Kenya Elections, or dealt with as corporate governance questions through the existing frameworks of the Law Society of Kenya.
iv. This Court lacks Jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition as it raises matters which have been determined by a Court of concurrent Jurisdiction in Kerugoya High Court Petition E010 of 2025 as consolidated with E011 and E014 of 2025 . The Petition is, to that extent, res judicata.
v. This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition as it raises matters which are sub-judice in view of the ongoing Appeal in Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Application E751 of 2025 .
vi. The Petition and Application are scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious and are otherwise an abuse of Court process.
2 nd Respondent
35. The 2 nd Respondent also filed an individual Notice of Preliminary Objection also dated 9 th February 2026 on the basis that:
i. The Petition and Notice of Motion, are fatally and incurably defective for failing to properly invoke this Court's jurisdiction, in as far as they seek a declaration that the 2 nd Respondent has violated principles of free and fair elections and should hence be restrained from contesting in the 2026 elections or any further elections without exhausting all the adequate avenues for remedy in the Law Society (General) Regulations 2020 where Rule 27 (5) (c) the Law Society (General) Regulations 2020 expressly provides that the Elections board is tasked to resolve disputes or complaints relating to the elections.
ii. The Petition and Notice of Motion are fatally and incurably defective for failing to properly invoke this Court's jurisdiction, in as far as they seek a declaration that the 2 nd Respondent has violated Articles of the Constitution without properly meeting the threshold set out in Anarita Karimi Njeru v The Republic (1976-1980) KLR 1272 hence the Petitioner has failed to raise any constitutional issues to be determined by this Court.
iii. The continued pendency of this Petition and Notice of Motion before this Court is a misguided and premature abuse of the processes of this Court.
iv. This Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the said Petition and Notice of Motion prior to the exhaustion of all remedies available to the Petitioner.
v. The Petition and Notice of Motion are misconceived, misdirected and misled and ought to be dismissed in limine with costs.
3 rd Respondent
36. In like manner, the 3 rd Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 9 th February 2026 on the grounds that:
i. The Petitioner has not exhausted the Alternative dispute resolution mechanism as envisaged in line with Regulations 95 and 96(1), as read with Section 41(q) of the LSK Act.
ii. The Petitioner has failed the test of specificity established in the celebrated case of Anarita Karimi vs Republic (No.1) (1979) 1 KLR 154 . The Petitioner has failed to lay down with precision the manner in which their constitutional rights have been violated or threatened and or met the threshold to be brought before this Court as a Petition.
iii. This Court lacks Jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition and the Applications filed herein.
iv. The Petition and Application are allegedly premised upon Articles 1, 2, 3(1), 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 73, 75, 81(E), 159,232,258, 259 and 260 of the Constitution. The Petitioner does not plead with any reasonable precision at all, how, who, when and in what manner their constitutional rights were infringed.
v. The Petition and the Application place no evidence in support of the various issues it raises. It is speculative and full of conjecture. It is instructive to note that the entire affidavit of one Mr. Victor Muatine is mere hearsay and says absolutely nothing in support of the Application and the Petition or the prayers sought therein.
vi. The Petitioner seeks outlandish prayers that clearly show he has ulterior motives in instituting the instant Petition and the Application. It also shows that the Petition herein is a clear example of abuse of the Court process.
vii. The Petitioner herein has not shown any decision that has been undertaken by the Board of the 3 rd Respondent in total disregard of the law.
viii. The Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the functions and conduct of affairs of the 3 rd Respondent contrary to the prayers sought by the Petitioner. This Court is being requested to remove and usurp powers and to interfere with the internal affairs of the management and processes of the Law Society of Kenya.
ix. The Petitioner has no cause of action at all as against the 3 rd Respondent. He has failed to show how and when his rights were violated.
x. The Application and Petition is an abuse of Court process, incompetent, misconceived, bad in law, and incurably defective and should be struck out in limine.
The Petitioner’s Case
37. The Petitioner in response to the Respondents’ Notices of Preliminary Objection filed his Replying Affidavits sworn on 10 th February 2026.
38. On jurisdiction, he challenges the Respondents’ claim stating the Petition raises substantial constitutional questions that go beyond the 2 nd Respondent’s electoral qualification. He maintains that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents are sued in their personal capacities for violating constitutional provisions while holding public office. He asserts therefore that the 3 rd Respondent’s Election Board lacks jurisdiction to entertain these constitutional questions.
39. While he admits that he did not exhaust the 3 rd Respondent’s internal dispute resolution process, he maintains that the Election Board does not have jurisdiction to entertain constitutional violations. That notwithstanding, he argues that the doctrine of exhaustion is not absolute especially where pursuing the same would cause irreparable harm such as this case.
40. The Petitioner argues that the Respondents’ reliance on the doctrine of constitutional avoidance is misplaced as the Petition does not address ordinary disputes but constitutional issues. He stresses that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents are guilty of constitutional violations in the way they have led the 3 rd Respondent and their conduct during the campaign period.
41. He further argues that he has a demonstrable cause of action being an Advocate and member of the 3 rd Respondent. He stresses that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent’s conduct has brought the entire profession into disrepute thereby directly affecting his professional environment and standing.
42. Equally, he denies that the Petition is res judicata as the parties, causes of action and reliefs sought are distinct and different from the present Petition. He informs that the cited suit dealt with electoral disputes within the 3 rd Respondent not the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent’s constitutional violations. A parallel response was issued with reference to the objection on sub judice.
43. Furthermore, he disputes that the Petition meets the threshold established in Anarita Karimi Njeru (supra). He states that he has clearly described the parties and specifically pleaded that his constitutional rights have been violated. Correspondingly, he states that the Petition underscores how the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents’ as leaders of the 3 rd Respondent have brought it disrepute and failed in discharging their fiduciary and leadership duties.
44. He argues that the objection on insufficient evidence is premature and inappropriate for a Preliminary Objection, as must be based on pure points of law. The Petitioner similarly refutes that the Petition is an abuse of the Court process as it raises bona fide constitutional questions of great public interest.
Interested Parties’ Case
45. The Interested Parties responses and submissions are not in the Court file or Court Online Platform (CTS).
Petitioner’s Submissions
46. The Petitioner in respect of both the application and the Respondents’ preliminary objections filed submissions dated 12 th February 2026.
47. On jurisdiction, the Petitioner relying on Regulation 27(1) of the Law Society of Kenya (General) Regulation, 2020 maintained that the 3 rd Respondent’s Elections Board lacks jurisdiction over constitutional violations. He stressed that the Election Board cannot declare a candidate unfit under Article 73 and 75 of the Constitution or bar a candidate from vying on integrity grounds. He submitted that this can only be determined by the Court under Article 165(3) (d) of the Constitution.
48. The Petitioner on the next issue submitted that the Petition complies with the threshold set out in Anarita Karimi Njeru (supra). This is since the Petition clearly identifies the specific violations by the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents. He also argued that the Petition also ventilates the breach of his welfare expectation as a member in the light of the manner the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents have brought the 3 rd Respondent into disrepute due to their personal actions. He on this premise argued that the Petition complies with this threshold.
49. On res judicata and sub judice, the Petitioner argued that contrary to the Respondents assertion, the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents are sued in their personal capacity for the violations highlighted in the Petition. He contrasts this with Petition No.E010 of 2025 and Nairobi Appeal No.E751 of 2025 , which involved the 3 rd Respondent as an institution not the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent’s in their personal capacity. He added that the constitutional violations in this matter are continuing citing smear campaigns by the 2 nd Respondent.
50. The Petitioner in light of this argued that the doctrine of exhaustion as raised by the Respondents is not applicable. Reliance was placed in William Odhiambo Ramogi v A-G [2020] eKLR where it was held that exhaustion is not required where the alternative forum lacks jurisdiction over constitutional questions, dispute involves constitutional interpretation beyond forum's mandate and remedy sought is only available in the High Court. The Petitioner argued that these exceptions apply in this matter as he seeks declarations on violation of constitutional provisions, further he seeks a prohibition order against the 2 nd respondent in the elections and also seeks an investigation by the 2 nd Interested Party into the matter.
51. The Petitioner argued that the objection on constitutional avoidance is misplaced as this is not an ordinary election dispute but a constitutional dispute that raises questions on whether admitted conflict of interest by 1 st and 2 nd Respondents violates Chapter Six, whether accepting unconstitutional taskforce appointment breaches constitutional oath, whether welfare neglect violates members' rights and whether the Respondents conduct promotes unscrupulous campaign practices in the 3 rd Respondent’s elections.
52. To this end, the Petitioner argued that the application is not an abuse of the Court process as alluded to but urgent as the 2 nd Respondent remains on the ballot despite the issues raised in the Petition.
1 st Respondent’s Submissions
53. The 1 st Respondent filed submissions dated 12 th February 2026 through Omondi Agasna Odiembo Advocates LLP. On the issue of jurisdiction, Counsel submitted that the 3 rd Respondent has a fully constituted Elections Board which is mandated to handle election related functions, determine the validity of a candidate’s nomination and resolve all disputes and complaints relating to the election as provided under Regulation 27(5) of the Law Society of Kenya (General) Regulations.
54. Counsel added that pursuant to Regulation 44(11) the Court’s jurisdiction can only be moved on appeal after the Board’s jurisdiction has been invoked. Accordingly, Counsel submitted that the Petition offends the doctrine of exhaustion and constitutional avoidance. Counsel urged the Court to therefore decline jurisdiction in this matter as the Petition relates to the nomination of the 2 nd Respondent to contest in the 3 rd Respondent’s election.
55. Counsel noted that this principle was upheld by the Supreme Court in Hon. Mohamed Abdi Mohamud v Ahmed Abdullahi and Others SCK Pet. No 7 of 2018 [2019] eKLR . Like reliance was placed in Okoiti & 15 others v Attorney General & 7 others; Commission on Administrative Justice & 15 others (Interested Parties) [2022] KEHC 3209 (KLR) .
56. On res judicata , Counsel submitted that the question of the 1 st Respondent’s appointment to the Panel of Experts for Compensation of Victims of Protests and Riots was dealt with and determined by the High Court in Kerugoya in Petition No.E010 of 2025 . Counsel noted that the 1 st Respondent was struck out as a party to those proceedings upon her resignation from the panel.
57. Reliance was placed in John Florence Maritime Services Ltd & another v Cabinet Secretary Transport & Infrastructure & 3 others [2021] KESC 39 (KLR) where the threshold for such a claim was determined to be the existence of former orders, whether the same were granted on merit, whether the Court rendering it had jurisdiction and similarity of parties and subject matter. Counsel submitted that applying this test to the present circumstances, it is apparent that the Petition raises matters which are res judicata.
58. Furthermore, Counsel submitted that the 1 st Respondent’s issue in relation to the legality of the Panel of Experts is currently being considered in appeal in Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal (Application) No. E751 of 2025 hence this matter is sub judice. Counsel relying in Kenya National Commission on Human Rights v Attorney General; Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 16 others (Interested Parties)[2020] KESC 54 (KLR) contended that if the Court were to attempt to render itself on the issues and prayers concerning the Panel of Experts, it would run the risk of offending the doctrine of sub judice in view of the ongoing proceedings before the Court of Appeal.
2 nd Respondent’s Submissions
59. The 2 nd Respondent through Oyoo P. and Associates filed two sets of submissions dated 12 th and 13 th February 2026 in relation to his preliminary objection and the application respectively.
60. In like manner, Counsel stressed that the Petitioner in failing to invoke the Election Board’s jurisdiction under Rule 27(5) (c) of the Law Society (General) Regulations 2020 failed to exhaust the avenues for redress provided for under the Law Society of Kenya Act. Similarly, the mechanisms in the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act, in relation to the allegation on violation of Chapter six of the Constitution. Counsel contended therefore that the Petitioner had approached this Court prematurely.
61. Counsel underscored that the doctrine of exhaustion had been comprehensively dealt with in numerous cases being William Odhiambo Ramogi & 3 others(supra), Speaker of National Assembly v Karume [1992) KLR 21 and Geoffrey Muthinia & 2 others v Samuel Munga Henry & 1756 others [2015] eKLR which were relied in, in support.
62. In view of the foregoing, Counsel relying in Owners of Motor Vessels 'Lillian S' v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited [1989] KLR 1 was certain that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter. In the same way, Counsel argued that the 2 nd Respondent’s preliminary objection is merited as is a pure point of law as discussed in Attorney General & another v Andrew Mwaina Githinii & another. CA No. 21 of 2015 .
63. Turning to the Petitioner’s application, Counsel submitted that an application for an injunction must first establish that the applicant has a prima facie case with a probability of success as defined by the Court of Appeal in Mrao Ltd Vs First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others (2003) eKLR . Counsel submitted that the Petitioner in this matter had not demonstrated that any of his rights had been violated. In Counsel’s view, the Petition relates to political expediency as the Petitioner is a strong supporter of the 2 nd Respondent’s opponent. That said, Counsel pointed out that the Petitioner’s allegations as it stands are mere averments as no evidence was adduced to support them. This is contrary to the 2 nd Respondent who demonstrated that the Petitioner had tried to extort him money in this matter.
64. Similarly, Counsel submitted that the Petitioner had not shown the harm he is likely to suffer and if at all that it cannot be adequately compensated by award of damages. Reliance was placed in Nguruman Limited Vs Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others (2014) eKLR where the Court of Appeal held that:
“On the second factor, the applicant must establish that he might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which cannot be adequately remedied by damages in the absence of an injunction, is a threshold requirement and the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate prima facie, the nature and extent of the injury. Speculative injury will not do; there must be more than an unfounded fear or apprehension on the part of the Applicant.”
65. Counsel on this basis argued that the Petitioner had not met the principles applicable for an injunction.
3 rd Respondent’s Submissions
66. The 3 rd Respondent in similar manner filed two sets of submissions dated 12 th February 2026 to the application and the preliminary objection.
67. On the preliminary objection, Counsel relying in Samuel Kamau Macharia & another vs Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd& 2 other, Application No.2 of 2011 submitted that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the Petitioner had not exhausted the alternative dispute resolution procedure set out under Regulations 95 and 96(1) as read with Section 41(g) of the Law Society of Kenya Act. Counsel submitted equally that the Petition offends Section 9 of the Fair Administrative Act, which hinders the Court from assuming jurisdiction in matters like this where a party has not exhausted internal remedies or demonstrated exceptional circumstances for exemption.
68. To buttress this point reliance was placed in Geoffrey Muthinia & Another (supra) where it was held that:
“It is imperative that where a dispute resolution mechanism exists outside courts, the same be exhausted before the jurisdiction of the courts is invoked. Courts ought to be the fora of last resort and not the first port of call the moment a storm brews within churches, as is bound to happen.”
69. Similar reliance was placed in Speaker of the National Assembly (supra), Maiimbo Georgiadis v Law Society of Kenya, Nairobi Branch & 11 others [2018] KEHC 6620 (KLR) and Clifford Keya v Jackline Inguitiah & 5 others; Atieno Aoko & 3 others (Interested Party) [2022) KEHC 1605 (KLR) .
70. The Petitioner is further accused of failing to plead the Petition with reasonable precision on, how, who, when and in what manner his constitutional rights were infringed in line with the test of specificity set out in Anarita Karimi (supra).
71. Furthermore, Counsel submitted that the Petition is devoid of any evidentiary support for the allegations advanced. As such, it is deemed speculative and full of conjecture, ripe for dismissal. Correspondingly, the Petitioner’s affidavit is contended to be full of hearsay and that the matters raised therein not only irrelevant to the issues before the Court but also offensive to the established principles of legal p
[...truncated]
1. The Petitioner, in the Petition dated 2 nd February 2026 alleges that current leadership of the 3 rd Respondent, which includes the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent, has been awash with reported scandals and alleged infringements of constitutional rights.
2. Regarding the 1 st Respondent, the Petitioner averred that she accepted, contrary to the constitutional oath of office, an appointment to an illegally constituted Taskforce by the government whereas the 2 nd Respondent, is alleged to have played a role in the ABNO IT tender scandal, in which it is claimed that his firm awarded the tender to a client of the firm.
3. The Petitioner further assails the Respondents stating that they neglected the core mandate of their duty as leaders and member welfare.
4. Further, they are accused of mismanagement and having misplaced priorities by prioritizing extravagant events over substantive welfare programs.
5. In addition, the 2 nd Respondent is alleged to have be involved in the corruption of the electoral process by engaging in smear campaigns against his opponent, Peter Wanyama Manyonge.
6. In sum, the Petitioner asserts that the Respondents conduct is in direct violation of Articles 10, 27, 47, 73, 75 and 81(e) of the Constitution.
The Application
7. The Petitioner in the accompanying Notice of Motion Application to the Petition of similar date seeks orders that:
i. Spent.
ii. Pending the hearing and determination of this Application inter partes, a temporary conservatory order be issued restraining the 2 nd Respondent, the Vice President of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), from presenting himself, campaigning, or in any manner whatsoever contesting for the position of President of the Law Society of Kenya in the scheduled 2026 LSK elections.
iii. Pending the hearing and determination of this Petition, a conservatory order be issued suspending the candidacy of the 2 nd Respondent in the LSK Presidential election, and directing the LSK Electoral Board and any relevant agency to exclude his name from the ballot, list of candidates, and all campaign material.
iv. The Court be pleased to issue such further or other orders as it may deem just and expedient in the circumstances of this matter.
v. The costs of this application be provided for.
8. The application is supported by the Petitioner’s affidavit, sworn on even date and the grounds on the face of the application.
9. He depones that he voted for the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents’ owing to their impeccable manifesto, however soon after, the reality of their leadership became clear. He avers that during the first Annual General Meeting (AGM), several key motions were hastily dismissed such as those touching on the full audit of the 3 rd Respondent’s funds. This was followed by the 1 st Respondent’s appointment in the purported illegal taskforce by the government and the 2 nd Respondent’s involvement in the ABNO scandal.
10. He contends that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents have never taken responsibility for their actions but have instead proceeded to work together to secure the 2 nd Respondent’s election in the forthcoming elections on 19 th February 2026.In addition, the 2 nd Respondent is accused of engaging in a smear campaign against his opponent Peter Manyonge Wanyama.
11. He postulates that the Respondents actions are driven by their corrupt fixation to protect the corrupt faction that is responsible for the misallocation of public interest litigation briefs to friends of the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents. Additionally, he asserts that the two are engaged in sensationalist matters at the expense of important member welfare programs.
12. The Petitioner depones that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent also enticed one, Patroba Michieka Omwenga, the administrator of the Advocates 2.0 Hub Whatsapp group, with alcohol due to his great influence in the group. He avers that this is despite him being freshly out of rehab and which caused the Petitioner his mentor, mental anguish due to the year they had journeyed to ensure he remains sober.
13. The Petitioner states that his attempts to reach out to the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent have been futile hence filing of this suit. He contends that unless these orders are granted, the 3 rd Respondent’s electoral process will be irredeemably tainted and Petition rendered nugatory. He urges thus that it is in public interest and preservation of the rule of law that this Court intervene to protect the credibility of the 3 rd Respondent.
1 st Respondent’s Case
14. The 1 st Respondent in opposition to the Petitioner’s application filed her Replying Affidavit sworn on 12 th February 2026.
15. She depones that the application which seeks conservatory orders against the 1 st Respondent’s candidacy seeks no orders against her.
16. She contends however that the Petitioner has made adverse claims against her leadership of the 3 rd Respondent. She notes that none of the claims are properly particularized and substantiated by cogent evidence. On this basis, she advances that the application is rendered frivolous, vexatious and fails to meet the threshold for grant of conservatory orders.
17. Further to this, she asserts that the Petitioner’s affidavit is scandalous as contains falsehoods which are not only disparaging but also defamatory with the intention of prejudicing the Respondents and with no bearing to the issues raised in the Petition.
18. In view of the foregoing she adjudges the application as premature, defective and an abuse of the Court process thus should be dismissed.
2 nd Respondent’s Case
19. The 2 nd Respondent also opposing the Application filed his Replying Affidavit sworn on 12 th February 2026.
20. On the onset, he avers that the application sponsored by his opponents is a political agenda against his candidature, as part of the smear campaign against him due to his popularity and acceptance by majority of the advocates. He points out that this is made manifest by the fact that the Petitioner is a supporter of his competitor, Peter Manyonge Wanyama.
21. He exposes that the Petitioner is on a fishing expedition with the intention of stopping his candidature as is evident from his prior suit in HCCHR Pet. Misc.No. E010 of 2026 which was dismissed by Hon. Justice Mwamuye on 2 nd February 2026.
22. He depones that contrary to the Petitioner’s allegations, the 3 rd Respondent’s procurement process is not within the mandate of the Council members as the same is solely vested on the Secretariat.
23. Furthermore, he argues that the issues raised cannot be addressed by this Court as the Petitioner has not addressed these concerns with the 3 rd Respondent’s Elections Board first.
24. He equally states that the Petitioner has been seeking to extort the Respondents Ksh.100, 000 which demonstrates that his sole purpose in these proceedings is purely personal and transactional. Further to this, his allegations are attacked for lacking any evidence in support.
25. He decries that issuance of the conservatory orders will be extremely prejudicial to him and an injustice as will deny him the right to participate in the elections which he has spent time and resources to prepare for. Moreover, he postulates that this will encourage future aspirants to bring unsubstantiated allegations against candidates in a bid to settle political scores. He implores this Court to therefore guard against this and dismiss the application.
3 rd Respondent’s Case
26. On 12 th February 2026, the 3 rd Respondent through its Chief Executive Officer, Florence Muturi filed its Replying Affidavit. She contends that the application is an abuse of the Court process and lacks merit.
27. She depones that the elections scheduled for 19 th February 2026 are at an advanced stage with the ballot papers having been already printed and the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) commissioned to oversee the process.
28. She informs that the members in the Special General Meeting held on 3 rd October 2025 approved and passed the resolution that the IEBC would be the electoral body for its elections for the period 2026 to 2028. The vacancy notices were soon thereafter issued calling for nominations for various elective positions.
29. She avers that among the candidates who duly submitted their nomination forms was the 2 nd Respondent. She states that there exists no pending suit or complaint contesting the validity of the 2 nd Respondent’s nomination.
30. She depones that the election campaigns have been ongoing for the last couple of months yet this application has been filed merely 2 weeks to the scheduled election date. According to her the prayers sought to restrain the 2 nd Respondent from vying are overtaken by events, impractical and incapable of enforcement at this late stage.
31. She contends that grant of the orders would not only occasion prejudice to the Respondents but also the members of the 3 rd Respondent who are not enjoined in this suit.
32. She avers that the Petitioner’s allegations are speculative, unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence. That said, she avers that the Petitioner neglected the 3 rd Respondent’s established internal dispute resolution mechanism before filing this suit.
33. In view of the foregoing the application is deemed premature with the sole aim of derailing a lawful electoral exercise. Considering this, she urges the Court to dismiss this application.
The Preliminary Objections
1 st and 2 nd Respondents’
34. These Respondents in rejoinder filed their Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 9 th February 2026 on the basis that:
i. This Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition as it substantively relates to the qualification of the 2 nd Respondent to participate in the election for President of the Law Society of Kenya, which mandate is vested in the Law Society of Kenya Elections Board established in accordance with Regulation 27(1) of the Law Society of Kenya (General) Regulations, 2020.
ii. The Petition offends the principle of exhaustion of other remedies as the Petitioner failed to ventilate his grievances through the Law Society of Kenya Elections Board before approaching this Court.
iii. The Petition offends the principle of constitutional avoidance as it presents as constitutional issues matters that could otherwise be adjudicated as ordinary disputes on eligibility to contest in the Law Society of Kenya Elections, or dealt with as corporate governance questions through the existing frameworks of the Law Society of Kenya.
iv. This Court lacks Jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition as it raises matters which have been determined by a Court of concurrent Jurisdiction in Kerugoya High Court Petition E010 of 2025 as consolidated with E011 and E014 of 2025 . The Petition is, to that extent, res judicata.
v. This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition as it raises matters which are sub-judice in view of the ongoing Appeal in Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Application E751 of 2025 .
vi. The Petition and Application are scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious and are otherwise an abuse of Court process.
2 nd Respondent
35. The 2 nd Respondent also filed an individual Notice of Preliminary Objection also dated 9 th February 2026 on the basis that:
i. The Petition and Notice of Motion, are fatally and incurably defective for failing to properly invoke this Court's jurisdiction, in as far as they seek a declaration that the 2 nd Respondent has violated principles of free and fair elections and should hence be restrained from contesting in the 2026 elections or any further elections without exhausting all the adequate avenues for remedy in the Law Society (General) Regulations 2020 where Rule 27 (5) (c) the Law Society (General) Regulations 2020 expressly provides that the Elections board is tasked to resolve disputes or complaints relating to the elections.
ii. The Petition and Notice of Motion are fatally and incurably defective for failing to properly invoke this Court's jurisdiction, in as far as they seek a declaration that the 2 nd Respondent has violated Articles of the Constitution without properly meeting the threshold set out in Anarita Karimi Njeru v The Republic (1976-1980) KLR 1272 hence the Petitioner has failed to raise any constitutional issues to be determined by this Court.
iii. The continued pendency of this Petition and Notice of Motion before this Court is a misguided and premature abuse of the processes of this Court.
iv. This Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the said Petition and Notice of Motion prior to the exhaustion of all remedies available to the Petitioner.
v. The Petition and Notice of Motion are misconceived, misdirected and misled and ought to be dismissed in limine with costs.
3 rd Respondent
36. In like manner, the 3 rd Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 9 th February 2026 on the grounds that:
i. The Petitioner has not exhausted the Alternative dispute resolution mechanism as envisaged in line with Regulations 95 and 96(1), as read with Section 41(q) of the LSK Act.
ii. The Petitioner has failed the test of specificity established in the celebrated case of Anarita Karimi vs Republic (No.1) (1979) 1 KLR 154 . The Petitioner has failed to lay down with precision the manner in which their constitutional rights have been violated or threatened and or met the threshold to be brought before this Court as a Petition.
iii. This Court lacks Jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition and the Applications filed herein.
iv. The Petition and Application are allegedly premised upon Articles 1, 2, 3(1), 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 73, 75, 81(E), 159,232,258, 259 and 260 of the Constitution. The Petitioner does not plead with any reasonable precision at all, how, who, when and in what manner their constitutional rights were infringed.
v. The Petition and the Application place no evidence in support of the various issues it raises. It is speculative and full of conjecture. It is instructive to note that the entire affidavit of one Mr. Victor Muatine is mere hearsay and says absolutely nothing in support of the Application and the Petition or the prayers sought therein.
vi. The Petitioner seeks outlandish prayers that clearly show he has ulterior motives in instituting the instant Petition and the Application. It also shows that the Petition herein is a clear example of abuse of the Court process.
vii. The Petitioner herein has not shown any decision that has been undertaken by the Board of the 3 rd Respondent in total disregard of the law.
viii. The Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the functions and conduct of affairs of the 3 rd Respondent contrary to the prayers sought by the Petitioner. This Court is being requested to remove and usurp powers and to interfere with the internal affairs of the management and processes of the Law Society of Kenya.
ix. The Petitioner has no cause of action at all as against the 3 rd Respondent. He has failed to show how and when his rights were violated.
x. The Application and Petition is an abuse of Court process, incompetent, misconceived, bad in law, and incurably defective and should be struck out in limine.
The Petitioner’s Case
37. The Petitioner in response to the Respondents’ Notices of Preliminary Objection filed his Replying Affidavits sworn on 10 th February 2026.
38. On jurisdiction, he challenges the Respondents’ claim stating the Petition raises substantial constitutional questions that go beyond the 2 nd Respondent’s electoral qualification. He maintains that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents are sued in their personal capacities for violating constitutional provisions while holding public office. He asserts therefore that the 3 rd Respondent’s Election Board lacks jurisdiction to entertain these constitutional questions.
39. While he admits that he did not exhaust the 3 rd Respondent’s internal dispute resolution process, he maintains that the Election Board does not have jurisdiction to entertain constitutional violations. That notwithstanding, he argues that the doctrine of exhaustion is not absolute especially where pursuing the same would cause irreparable harm such as this case.
40. The Petitioner argues that the Respondents’ reliance on the doctrine of constitutional avoidance is misplaced as the Petition does not address ordinary disputes but constitutional issues. He stresses that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents are guilty of constitutional violations in the way they have led the 3 rd Respondent and their conduct during the campaign period.
41. He further argues that he has a demonstrable cause of action being an Advocate and member of the 3 rd Respondent. He stresses that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent’s conduct has brought the entire profession into disrepute thereby directly affecting his professional environment and standing.
42. Equally, he denies that the Petition is res judicata as the parties, causes of action and reliefs sought are distinct and different from the present Petition. He informs that the cited suit dealt with electoral disputes within the 3 rd Respondent not the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent’s constitutional violations. A parallel response was issued with reference to the objection on sub judice.
43. Furthermore, he disputes that the Petition meets the threshold established in Anarita Karimi Njeru (supra). He states that he has clearly described the parties and specifically pleaded that his constitutional rights have been violated. Correspondingly, he states that the Petition underscores how the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents’ as leaders of the 3 rd Respondent have brought it disrepute and failed in discharging their fiduciary and leadership duties.
44. He argues that the objection on insufficient evidence is premature and inappropriate for a Preliminary Objection, as must be based on pure points of law. The Petitioner similarly refutes that the Petition is an abuse of the Court process as it raises bona fide constitutional questions of great public interest.
Interested Parties’ Case
45. The Interested Parties responses and submissions are not in the Court file or Court Online Platform (CTS).
Petitioner’s Submissions
46. The Petitioner in respect of both the application and the Respondents’ preliminary objections filed submissions dated 12 th February 2026.
47. On jurisdiction, the Petitioner relying on Regulation 27(1) of the Law Society of Kenya (General) Regulation, 2020 maintained that the 3 rd Respondent’s Elections Board lacks jurisdiction over constitutional violations. He stressed that the Election Board cannot declare a candidate unfit under Article 73 and 75 of the Constitution or bar a candidate from vying on integrity grounds. He submitted that this can only be determined by the Court under Article 165(3) (d) of the Constitution.
48. The Petitioner on the next issue submitted that the Petition complies with the threshold set out in Anarita Karimi Njeru (supra). This is since the Petition clearly identifies the specific violations by the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents. He also argued that the Petition also ventilates the breach of his welfare expectation as a member in the light of the manner the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents have brought the 3 rd Respondent into disrepute due to their personal actions. He on this premise argued that the Petition complies with this threshold.
49. On res judicata and sub judice, the Petitioner argued that contrary to the Respondents assertion, the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents are sued in their personal capacity for the violations highlighted in the Petition. He contrasts this with Petition No.E010 of 2025 and Nairobi Appeal No.E751 of 2025 , which involved the 3 rd Respondent as an institution not the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent’s in their personal capacity. He added that the constitutional violations in this matter are continuing citing smear campaigns by the 2 nd Respondent.
50. The Petitioner in light of this argued that the doctrine of exhaustion as raised by the Respondents is not applicable. Reliance was placed in William Odhiambo Ramogi v A-G [2020] eKLR where it was held that exhaustion is not required where the alternative forum lacks jurisdiction over constitutional questions, dispute involves constitutional interpretation beyond forum's mandate and remedy sought is only available in the High Court. The Petitioner argued that these exceptions apply in this matter as he seeks declarations on violation of constitutional provisions, further he seeks a prohibition order against the 2 nd respondent in the elections and also seeks an investigation by the 2 nd Interested Party into the matter.
51. The Petitioner argued that the objection on constitutional avoidance is misplaced as this is not an ordinary election dispute but a constitutional dispute that raises questions on whether admitted conflict of interest by 1 st and 2 nd Respondents violates Chapter Six, whether accepting unconstitutional taskforce appointment breaches constitutional oath, whether welfare neglect violates members' rights and whether the Respondents conduct promotes unscrupulous campaign practices in the 3 rd Respondent’s elections.
52. To this end, the Petitioner argued that the application is not an abuse of the Court process as alluded to but urgent as the 2 nd Respondent remains on the ballot despite the issues raised in the Petition.
1 st Respondent’s Submissions
53. The 1 st Respondent filed submissions dated 12 th February 2026 through Omondi Agasna Odiembo Advocates LLP. On the issue of jurisdiction, Counsel submitted that the 3 rd Respondent has a fully constituted Elections Board which is mandated to handle election related functions, determine the validity of a candidate’s nomination and resolve all disputes and complaints relating to the election as provided under Regulation 27(5) of the Law Society of Kenya (General) Regulations.
54. Counsel added that pursuant to Regulation 44(11) the Court’s jurisdiction can only be moved on appeal after the Board’s jurisdiction has been invoked. Accordingly, Counsel submitted that the Petition offends the doctrine of exhaustion and constitutional avoidance. Counsel urged the Court to therefore decline jurisdiction in this matter as the Petition relates to the nomination of the 2 nd Respondent to contest in the 3 rd Respondent’s election.
55. Counsel noted that this principle was upheld by the Supreme Court in Hon. Mohamed Abdi Mohamud v Ahmed Abdullahi and Others SCK Pet. No 7 of 2018 [2019] eKLR . Like reliance was placed in Okoiti & 15 others v Attorney General & 7 others; Commission on Administrative Justice & 15 others (Interested Parties) [2022] KEHC 3209 (KLR) .
56. On res judicata , Counsel submitted that the question of the 1 st Respondent’s appointment to the Panel of Experts for Compensation of Victims of Protests and Riots was dealt with and determined by the High Court in Kerugoya in Petition No.E010 of 2025 . Counsel noted that the 1 st Respondent was struck out as a party to those proceedings upon her resignation from the panel.
57. Reliance was placed in John Florence Maritime Services Ltd & another v Cabinet Secretary Transport & Infrastructure & 3 others [2021] KESC 39 (KLR) where the threshold for such a claim was determined to be the existence of former orders, whether the same were granted on merit, whether the Court rendering it had jurisdiction and similarity of parties and subject matter. Counsel submitted that applying this test to the present circumstances, it is apparent that the Petition raises matters which are res judicata.
58. Furthermore, Counsel submitted that the 1 st Respondent’s issue in relation to the legality of the Panel of Experts is currently being considered in appeal in Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal (Application) No. E751 of 2025 hence this matter is sub judice. Counsel relying in Kenya National Commission on Human Rights v Attorney General; Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 16 others (Interested Parties)[2020] KESC 54 (KLR) contended that if the Court were to attempt to render itself on the issues and prayers concerning the Panel of Experts, it would run the risk of offending the doctrine of sub judice in view of the ongoing proceedings before the Court of Appeal.
2 nd Respondent’s Submissions
59. The 2 nd Respondent through Oyoo P. and Associates filed two sets of submissions dated 12 th and 13 th February 2026 in relation to his preliminary objection and the application respectively.
60. In like manner, Counsel stressed that the Petitioner in failing to invoke the Election Board’s jurisdiction under Rule 27(5) (c) of the Law Society (General) Regulations 2020 failed to exhaust the avenues for redress provided for under the Law Society of Kenya Act. Similarly, the mechanisms in the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act, in relation to the allegation on violation of Chapter six of the Constitution. Counsel contended therefore that the Petitioner had approached this Court prematurely.
61. Counsel underscored that the doctrine of exhaustion had been comprehensively dealt with in numerous cases being William Odhiambo Ramogi & 3 others(supra), Speaker of National Assembly v Karume [1992) KLR 21 and Geoffrey Muthinia & 2 others v Samuel Munga Henry & 1756 others [2015] eKLR which were relied in, in support.
62. In view of the foregoing, Counsel relying in Owners of Motor Vessels 'Lillian S' v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited [1989] KLR 1 was certain that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter. In the same way, Counsel argued that the 2 nd Respondent’s preliminary objection is merited as is a pure point of law as discussed in Attorney General & another v Andrew Mwaina Githinii & another. CA No. 21 of 2015 .
63. Turning to the Petitioner’s application, Counsel submitted that an application for an injunction must first establish that the applicant has a prima facie case with a probability of success as defined by the Court of Appeal in Mrao Ltd Vs First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others (2003) eKLR . Counsel submitted that the Petitioner in this matter had not demonstrated that any of his rights had been violated. In Counsel’s view, the Petition relates to political expediency as the Petitioner is a strong supporter of the 2 nd Respondent’s opponent. That said, Counsel pointed out that the Petitioner’s allegations as it stands are mere averments as no evidence was adduced to support them. This is contrary to the 2 nd Respondent who demonstrated that the Petitioner had tried to extort him money in this matter.
64. Similarly, Counsel submitted that the Petitioner had not shown the harm he is likely to suffer and if at all that it cannot be adequately compensated by award of damages. Reliance was placed in Nguruman Limited Vs Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others (2014) eKLR where the Court of Appeal held that:
“On the second factor, the applicant must establish that he might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which cannot be adequately remedied by damages in the absence of an injunction, is a threshold requirement and the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate prima facie, the nature and extent of the injury. Speculative injury will not do; there must be more than an unfounded fear or apprehension on the part of the Applicant.”
65. Counsel on this basis argued that the Petitioner had not met the principles applicable for an injunction.
3 rd Respondent’s Submissions
66. The 3 rd Respondent in similar manner filed two sets of submissions dated 12 th February 2026 to the application and the preliminary objection.
67. On the preliminary objection, Counsel relying in Samuel Kamau Macharia & another vs Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd& 2 other, Application No.2 of 2011 submitted that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the Petitioner had not exhausted the alternative dispute resolution procedure set out under Regulations 95 and 96(1) as read with Section 41(g) of the Law Society of Kenya Act. Counsel submitted equally that the Petition offends Section 9 of the Fair Administrative Act, which hinders the Court from assuming jurisdiction in matters like this where a party has not exhausted internal remedies or demonstrated exceptional circumstances for exemption.
68. To buttress this point reliance was placed in Geoffrey Muthinia & Another (supra) where it was held that:
“It is imperative that where a dispute resolution mechanism exists outside courts, the same be exhausted before the jurisdiction of the courts is invoked. Courts ought to be the fora of last resort and not the first port of call the moment a storm brews within churches, as is bound to happen.”
69. Similar reliance was placed in Speaker of the National Assembly (supra), Maiimbo Georgiadis v Law Society of Kenya, Nairobi Branch & 11 others [2018] KEHC 6620 (KLR) and Clifford Keya v Jackline Inguitiah & 5 others; Atieno Aoko & 3 others (Interested Party) [2022) KEHC 1605 (KLR) .
70. The Petitioner is further accused of failing to plead the Petition with reasonable precision on, how, who, when and in what manner his constitutional rights were infringed in line with the test of specificity set out in Anarita Karimi (supra).
71. Furthermore, Counsel submitted that the Petition is devoid of any evidentiary support for the allegations advanced. As such, it is deemed speculative and full of conjecture, ripe for dismissal. Correspondingly, the Petitioner’s affidavit is contended to be full of hearsay and that the matters raised therein not only irrelevant to the issues before the Court but also offensive to the established principles of legal p
[...truncated]