[2006] KEHC 2095 (KLR)
The court found that the evidence presented by the respondent, being unauthenticated photocopies of letters, was not properly before the court and thus inadmissible. Furthermore, the court held that even if the advocates did not hold current practising certificates, they were entitled to represent themselves in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2095 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mbugua & Mbugua, Advocates; Respondent: Kenindia Assurance Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 40 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection overruled with costs
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Practising Certificate, Preliminary Objection, Self Representation
- 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
Mbugua & Mbugua, Advocates
Applicant
Kenindia Assurance Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application is incompetent for being filed and signed by advocates without current practising certificates.
- 2 Whether advocates not holding current practising certificates can represent themselves in court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the evidence presented by the respondent, being unauthenticated photocopies of letters, was not properly before the court and thus inadmissible. Furthermore, the court held that even if the advocates did not hold current practising certificates, they were entitled to represent themselves in court in their own cause. The absence of a practising certificate does not bar an advocate from appearing in court on their own behalf, only from representing others. Therefore, the preliminary objection was without merit and was overruled with costs to the applicant.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection overruled with costs
Orders
- The preliminary objection is overruled with costs to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Misc Appli 40 of 2006
MBUGUA & MBUGUA, ADVOCATES ……………………………..... APPLICANT
VERSUS
KENINDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED…………….....… RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The Applicant, which is a firm of advocates, applied by notice of motion dated 12th April 2006 under Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act, Cap. 16 for judgement for its advocate/client taxed costs. In response to the application the Respondent/Client filed a notice of preliminary objection dated 7th June 2006. That preliminary objection was argued on 8th June 2006. The point taken is that the application is filed and signed by unqualified advocates as ANN MUTHONI MBUGUA and NJOROGE MBUGUA (t/a MBUGUA & MBUGUA, ADVOCATES) do not hold practicing certificates for the year 2006. The evidence tendered for this allegation are unauthenticated copies of letters dated 6th June 2006 addressed to one JACKSON OMWENGA, Advocate by the Registrar of the High Court confirming that ANN MUTHONI MBUGUA and NJOROGE MBUGUA do not hold current practicing certificates.
The preliminary objection is opposed upon two main grounds. These are, one, that there is no proper evidence before the court that the two advocates do not hold current practicing certificates, and two, that in any event, the two are representing themselves and not representing a client and are therefore entitiled to come to court on their own behalf and to prosecute the application.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels. The two letters are photocopies attached to the notice of preliminary objection. They have not been properly produced before court as duly commissioned annextures to an affidavit. They are not proper evidence placed before the court, and I must therefore disregard them. In any event, the applicant firm is representing itself. Any person, even an advocate, is entitled to come to court for and on behalf of himself/herself. He/she cannot be barred from coming to court in his/her own cause merely because he/she does not hold a current practicing certificate, if he/she is representing himself/herself and not representing any other person.
I consider that the preliminary objection is not well taken and has no merit. It is hereby overruled with costs. Order accordingly.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2006
H.P.G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2006.