[2016] KEHC 1523 (KLR)
The court held that the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over matters of professional misconduct involving advocates, and its orders are enforceable by the High Court where there is no pending appeal. Since the Tribunal had rendered its decision and there was no appeal, the High Court found...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 1523 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Indira Rajnikant Shah; Respondent: Edwin Keega Karwanda
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 371 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Adoption and Enforcement of Disciplinary Tribunal Orders
- Outcome
- application granted
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Enforcement of Tribunal Orders, Advocates Disciplinary Proceedings, Judgment Adoption
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Indira Rajnikant Shah
Applicant
Edwin Keega Karwanda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Adoption and Enforcement of Disciplinary Tribunal Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should adopt the proceedings, judgment, and orders of the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal in Cause No. 84 of 2013.
- 2 Whether leave should be granted to enforce the Tribunal's orders against Edwin Keega Karwanda.
- 3 Whether a warrant of arrest should issue against Edwin Keega Karwanda for non-compliance with the Tribunal's orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over matters of professional misconduct involving advocates, and its orders are enforceable by the High Court where there is no pending appeal. Since the Tribunal had rendered its decision and there was no appeal, the High Court found no legal impediment to adopting the Tribunal's judgment and granting leave for enforcement. The court further found that the applicant had demonstrated inability to trace the respondent or his property for attachment, justifying the issuance of a warrant of arrest to ensure compliance with the Tribunal's orders. The application was therefore granted as prayed.
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- The proceedings, judgment, and orders of the Disciplinary Tribunal in Cause No. 84 of 2013 are adopted by the High Court.
- Leave is granted to enforce the orders made by the Disciplinary Tribunal on 22nd April, 2013.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MISCELLENOUS CIVIL CASE NO. 371 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER DISCPLINARY TRIBUNAL CAUSE NO. 84 OF 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES ACT
AND
IN THE MATTER OF KARWANDA, EDWIN KEEGA ADVOCATES
AND
IN THE MATTER OF EXECUTION OF THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
INDIRA RAJNIKANT SHAH……………………………….COMPLAINANT
RULING
1. The Applicant herein has filed a chamber summons application dated 19th May, 2016 seeking for orders that this court do adopt the proceedings, judgment and orders of the Disciplinary Tribunal in Disciplinary Tribunal Cause No. 84 of 2013 and that leave to enforce the said orders made on 22nd April,2013 be granted. It was further prayed that warrant of arrest be issued against Edwin Keega Karwanda.
2. The grounds upon which this application is brought are that the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal found Mr. Edwin Keega Karwanda guilty in a judgment delivered on 21st January, 2013. That the said advocate has since disappeared and the Applicant cannot trace his property for attachment and that the Applicant was granted leave to execute the said orders in person.
3. The Tribunal is by virtue of Section 60(1) of the Advocates Act (Cap.16 Laws of Kenya) mandated to handle all issues of professional misconduct relating to advocates. The advocate, Edwin Keega Karwanda being an advocate and the subject matter concerning him being one of professional misconduct, the matter rightfully falls within the realms of the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal having rendered a decision in this matter and there being no pending appeal, there is nothing to prevent this court from adopting the judgment of the Tribunal and any subsequent orders.
5. Ultimately, the application dated 19th May, 2016, is hereby granted as prayed and since it’s an ex parte application the court makes no orders as to costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 17th day of November, 2016.
………………
L NJUGUNA
JUDGE
In The presence of
………………….. for the Complainant