[2004] KEHC 1295 (KLR)
The court held that the validity of a plaint is contingent upon it being filed by an advocate who holds a valid practising certificate at the time of filing. Payment for a practising certificate does not suffice; the certificate must be issued and in force. Since the plaintiff's counsel did not have a valid...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1295 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Menno Travel Services Limited; Defendant: Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 391 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/application for Dismissal
- Outcome
- suit dismissed with costs to the defendant
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Pleadings, Advocates Act Compliance, Practising Certificate Requirement
- 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
Menno Travel Services Limited
Plaintiff
Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/application for Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaint filed by an advocate without a valid practising certificate is competent and valid.
- 2 Whether the suit should be dismissed for contravening the Advocates Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the validity of a plaint is contingent upon it being filed by an advocate who holds a valid practising certificate at the time of filing. Payment for a practising certificate does not suffice; the certificate must be issued and in force. Since the plaintiff's counsel did not have a valid practising certificate when the plaint was filed, the suit was incompetent and contravened the mandatory provisions of the Advocates Act. The court was persuaded by precedent and statutory interpretation that the defect was fatal and could not be cured by subsequent issuance of the certificate. Consequently, the suit was dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed with costs to the defendant
Orders
- The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant.
- The defendant shall have the costs of the application dated 8th September 2004.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE 391 OF 2004
MENNO TRAVEL SERVICES LIMITED ………………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF KENYA LTD…….......…………DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff’s counsel filed the plaint herein on 16th July 2004. The Plaintiff’s counsel did not have in force a practising certificate for the year 2004 until 11th August 2004.
The defendant by its Chamber Summon dated 8th September 2004 seeks the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s suit in that it contravenes the provisions of the Advocates Act. The application is brought under Order 6 Rule 13 (1) (d).
Section 9 of the Advocates Act provides “no person shall be qualified to act as an advocate unless: -
(a) he has been admitted as an advocate; and
(b) his name is for the time being on the Roll; and
(c) he has in force a practising certificate.
There is no doubt that the Plaintiff’s counsel, Peter L. Onalo, was admitted as an advocate of the High Court of Kenya on 12th August 1974, what is clearly absent is a valid practicing certificate as at the time of filing the present suit.
Peter L. Onalo states that he paid for his practicing certificate on 3rd May 2004 but the issuance of the certificate took long. I accept Defendant’s counsel’s submission that what is material is the certificate and not the Law Society of Kenya receipt. I am persuaded by the ruling of my brother Justice I. Lenaola in the case of BELGO HOLIDINGS LTD – V – AKBER ABDULLAH KASSAM ESMAIL HCCC 244 OF 2004 that “….Section 24 of the Adv ocates Act Cap 16 of Kenya, every practising certificate shall bear the date when it was issued and shall be valid only from that date.”
Mr. Onalo obviously was only entitled to practise as an advocate from the date of his practicing certificate and not before. Accordingly I do agree with the submissions of the defendant’s counsel and I do hereby allow the application dated 8th September 2004 and accordingly the plaintiff’s suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant. The defendant shall also have the costs of the application dated 8th September 2004.
Dated and delivered this 1st day of December 2004.
MARY KASANGO
AG JUDGE