https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9640

Mukolwe & another v Boma International Hospitality College & 2 others (Judicial Review E073 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9640 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (3 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9640 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Judicial Review Judicial Review E073 of 2026 WM Musyoka, J July 3, 2026 Between Ivy Mukolwe 1st Applicant Catherine Achola 2nd Applicant and Boma International Hospitality College 1st Respondent George Adalla 2nd Respondent Susan Ng’Ong’A 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.I am called upon to determine an application, dated 6th May 2026. It seeks that the court rectifies an error, manifest on the face of the record of the ruling, dated 24th April 2026, and varies or sets aside the order putting off the resolution of the contempt application, on the basis of the supposed mistaken status of Mr. Nathan Kirop Kilimo. 2.The grounds, on the face of the application, are that the ruling erroneously states that the applicants and their advocates had remained silent on the status of Mr. Kilimo; that the court ruled it could not determine the application the subject of the ruling since the applicants had sworn an affidavit referring to Mr. Kilimo as their Advocate, and directed them to regularise the application; the Advocates for the applicants had filed an affidavit, dated 1st April to clarify the status of Mr. Kilimo; that affidavit was filed during court recess, and there is possibility that the court did not see it; the court would have ruled differently, had it looked at that affidavit; and the matter should not be delayed on account of an error on the part of the court. 3.The affidavit, in support of the application, is sworn by Mr. Sadam Maalim, on 6th May 2026. It largely regurgitates, almost word for word, the averments made in the grounds on the face of the application, and its importance lies with the documents that it exhibits. It has a face of a CTS page relating to HCJR/EO73/2026, to evidence the filing of the further affidavit of 1st April 2026. There is a copy of the ruling impugned, delivered herein on 24th April 2026. There is a copy of a further affidavit, sworn by Mr. Sadam Maalim, on 1st April 2026. There is a copy of a practising certificate, for the year 2026, in the name of Mr. Sadam Maalim Hussein. There is also a copy of a certificate of registration of the firm of Maalim & Associates, Advocates. There is a copy of a student identification card in the name of Mr. Kilimo Nathan Kirop, issued by the Kenya School of Law. There is also a copy of the national identity card for Mr. Nathan Kirop Kilimo. There is an extract from a workbook, displaying instructions to students on internship. There is a transitional transcript, from the Council of Legal Education. There is a document, which appears to be an excerpt from some larger document, which is titled “Schedule,” with a list of areas of instruction during pupillage. Then there is a bundle of email correspondence, between Mr. Kilimo Nathan and Okuta Advocates. 4.There is a response, to the application, dated 6th May 2026. It is by way of an affidavit, sworn on 25th May 2026, by the 2nd respondent. It is averred that the affidavit, that had been sworn to support the application, dated 23rd March 2026, by the applicants in this cause, had identified Mr. Kilimo as an Advocate. The Advocate for the respondents then wrote to the Law Society of Kenya, seeking confirmation on the status of the said Mr. Kilimo. The Law Society of Kenya wrote back, confirming that Mr. Kilimo was not an Advocate. Upon receipt of that letter, the respondents filed a supplementary affidavit, sworn on 30th March 2026, seeking that the pleadings be struck out, as the individual behind them, Mr. Kilimo, was not an Advocate, and the said pleadings were tainted with illegality. The court, in its ruling of 24th April 2026, focused on that issue, and treated it as central, and confined its ruling, of 24th April 2026, to that sole issue, deferring determination of the substantive issue. It was noted, in the ruling, that the applicants had embraced Mr. Kilimo as their Advocate. 5.The 2nd respondent asserts, in that replying affidavit, that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, and that the issues being raised, in the instant application, would have been best addressed by way of an appeal, or through the Slip Rule. It is argued that the court was not mistaken, when it put off the contempt application, to first address the issue on the status of Mr. Kilimo. It is asserted that the fact that Mr. Kilimo was an unqualified person, to act as an Advocate, remained unchanged, and the court was not mistaken, as alleged. 6.Both sides filed written submissions. 7.The submissions by the applicants revolve around whether review is the appropriate remedy for the error pointed out, and whether the ruling of 24th April 2026 ought to be reviewed. The decisions in Thomas Owen Ondiek & another vs. National Bank of Kenya Limited & another [2021] eKLR, Republic vs. Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya [2019] KEHC 6379 (KLR), Nyamogo & Nyamogo vs. Kogo [2001] 1 EA 173 and National Bank of Kenya Limited vs. Ndungu Njau CA No. 211 of 1996, are cited. 8.The respondents, in their written submissions, dated 4th June 2026, limit themselves to whether review was the appropriate avenue to challenge the ruling of 24th April 2026. The decisions in David & 2 others vs. Bakaya [2025] KEHC 12790 (KLR) and Kenya Bureau of Standard vs. Geo Chem Middle East [2021] KESC 60 (KLR) are cited. 9.The Advocates for both sides, Mr. Attalo for the applicants and Mr. Okuta for the respondents, breathed life to their written submissions, when they highlighted the same before me on 9th June 2026. 10.The impugned ruling, of Chigiti J, of 24th April 2026, was on an application dated 23rd March 2026. That application was in respect of contempt of court, of orders that had been made herein on 13th March 2026. Chigiti J did not, in that ruling, deal with the substance of the application of 23rd March 2026, the alleged contempt of court by the respondents. The ruling turned on a totally different issue, which had apparently manifested itself in the averments made by the applicants in their contempt application, and the documents annexed to the affidavit sworn in support of that application. 11.The matter, which forms the core of the ruling of 24th April 2026, revolves around Mr. Kilimo. In the affidavit by the applicants, in support of their application, dated 23rd March 2026, and the documents attached as evidence to that affidavit, it emerged that Mr. Kilimo was regarded by the applicants as their Advocate; and Mr. Kilimo had engaged in correspondence with the Advocates for the respondents over the matter herein, in a manner suggesting that he was an Advocate. The Advocates for the respondents raised that issue with the Law Society of Kenya, to establish the true position about Mr. Kilimo, and the Law Society of Kenya confirmed that Mr. Kilimo was in fact not an Advocate. The Advocates then filed a further affidavit, placing that fact before the court, and inviting the court to consider striking out the said application on that basis. 12.Chigiti J considered that to be a preliminary issue, which required to be addressed first, before the application, dated 23rd March 2026, could be considered on its merits. The Judge, in the ruling, observed that Mr. Kilimo had not sought to clarify the position, neither had the Advocates for the applicants. Based on that, the court elected to go by the confirmation by the Law Society of Kenya, that Mr. Kilimo was not an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, and ruled that the court could not determine an application, that is the one for contempt of court, dated 23rd March 2026, which was being prosecuted by a person who was not known as an Advocate by the Law Society of Kenya. The court refrained from striking out the application, and opted to give time to the applicants, to regularise the issue of representation, within 14 days, before the application, dated 23rd March 2026, could be considered on its merits. 13.Rather than comply with the directions given in the ruling of 24th April 2026, the Advocates for the applicants have elected to fight back, through the instant application, dated 6th May 2026, complaining that the court had not considered a further affidavit that the applicants had allegedly filed, sworn on 1st April 2026, which, they argue, if it had been considered, the court would not have come to the conclusions it came to, in the ruling of 24th April 2026, and it would not have made the orders that it made in that ruling. The application, dated 6th May 2026, is inviting the court to consider that further affidavit of 1st April 2026, with the hope that the court would reconsider the orders of 24th April 2026. 14.What is the purport of that affidavit, of 1st April 2026, which the Judge is said to have failed to consider? I have gone through the documents uploaded on the CTS platform, and I have noted that indeed an affidavit was filed on 1st April 2026. It was sworn by Mr. Sadam Maalim, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, practising in the firm of Maalim & Associates, as a managing partner. He swore the affidavit principally to respond to the affidavit of 30th March 2026, by the respondents, which had raised the issue of the status of Mr. Kilimo. 15.Mr. Maalim explains, in that affidavit, that Mr. Kilimo was a student at the Kenya School of Law, who was undertaking pupillage at the firm of Maalim & Associates. He asserts that under the KSL Pupillage Deed, Form C, a pupil “is allowed to do correspondence.” He asserts that Mr. Kilimo was tasked with legal research, correspondence and client care, and that in engaging in those activities, he never referred to himself as an Advocate, and he never signed any document or correspondence. He further asserts that the applicants, in their affidavit in support of the application of 23rd March 2026, did not refer to Mr. Kilimo as their Advocate, but rather as a legal representative. He explains that the mention of Advocates in that application meant Mr. Horsefield, Mr. Attalo and Miss Ndichu. He further explains that Mr. Kilimo did not inform Mr. Okuta that he was an Advocate. Mr. Maalim attached documents to that affidavit, which are the same as those attached to the affidavit sworn on 6th May 2026, which I have recited here above. 16.The complaint is that the Judge, in the ruling of 24th April 2026, did not consider that affidavit, for if that affidavit had been considered, the court would have come to a different outcome. Let me first consider whether the Judge considered that affidavit in the ruling of 24th April 2026, and whether, if it was to be considered, it would have been of any consequence. 17.I have perused that ruling of 24th April 2026. The filings that the Judge identified, for the purposes of the ruling, were the application dated 23rd March 2026, and its supporting affidavit; the replying affidavit, sworn on 24th March 2026; and the supplementary affidavit, sworn on 30th March 2026. There is no mention of the supplementary affidavit, of 1st April 2026, in the ruling. Paragraph 7 of the ruling indicates that the Judge had considered the rival affidavits. It is not clear whether that would include the affidavit of 1st April 2026. My inclination would be to conclude that it does not, to the extent that that affidavit is not mentioned in the ruling as one of the filings made by the parties. 18.I have noted, from the trial record, that directions on the disposal of the application dated 23rd March 2026, were given on 24th and 25th March 2026, with respect to the filing of responses and submissions, and a date was allocated for ruling on that application, being 17th April 2026. Given the short time available, between the date the application was filed, directions given and the ruling date set, and given that the intervening period fell within the Easter holiday, and the Easter Recess of the High Court, the probability is that the last filing, of 1st April 2026, could have been done after the Judge had already either written the ruling; or retreated during Recess, with the court file, and without access to CTS, for preparation or writing of the ruling. 19.Having established that the affidavit of 1st April 2026 is not mentioned in the ruling, suggesting that the Judge might not have had it before him, when the issues at hand were being considered, the question that should follow should be whether its consideration would have made a difference to the final outcome. 20.The principal finding by the Judge, in that ruling, and which was the foundation for the final orders, is that Mr. Kilimo was not an Advocate. Based on that conclusion, the court was of the view that it could not determine an application whose foundation was material that was put together by a person who was not qualified to act as an Advocate. The applicants were then required to sort out the issue of representation, before the contempt application could be considered on its merits. 21.Would consideration of the contents of that affidavit, of 1st April 2026, have made any difference? 22.The affidavit, of 1st April 2026, merely confirmed what the Law Society of Kenya had stated, in the letter it had written to the respondents, that Mr. Kilimo was not an Advocate. The substance of that affidavit is aligned to the conclusion that the Judge arrived at, in the ruling of 24th April 2026, that Mr. Kilimo was not an Advocate of the High Court, and that there was an issue around the role Mr. Kilimo played in the application that had been placed before the court. 23.I believe that consideration of the contents of the affidavit of 1st April 2026 would have made some difference, not in favour of the applicants, but against them. If the Judge had considered the substance of that affidavit, he would have, no doubt, struck out the application, dated 23rd March 2026. Why do I say so? Because this is a matter, where the deponent of that affidavit, Mr. Maalim, who is the principal in the firm of Maalim & Associates, which is the firm of Advocates on record for the applicants herein, justifies what Mr. Kilimo did in the matter, yet the conduct of Mr. Kilimo is completely unjustifiable. Mr. Maalim himself, by the contents of his affidavit, admits to using Mr. Kilimo as a qualified Advocate, when he should have known better. The affidavit displays elements of gross unprofessional conduct, on the part of Mr. Maalim, as the principal, for which he should be contrite. 24.Let me explain. Mr. Kilimo was not an employee in the firm of Maalim & Associates. He was a student at the Kenya School of Law, attached to that firm as a pupil or apprentice. His position, as a pupil, attached to that firm, did not require him to work as if employed by that firm, with authority to engage in correspondence with Advocates representing parties in active litigation with the clients of the firm. He was at the law firm to learn the art and craft of advocacy, which involved learning how to draft pleadings, correspondence and other writings that form the core of the business and practice of law. Drafting pleadings and correspondence does not include having the pupil engage directly with outside Advocates, as if he is himself an Advocate. He may be characterised as a “trainee Advocate.” However, a “trainee Advocate” is not an Advocate, and he ought not act as one. 25.The issue herein is not about Mr. Kilimo drafting pleadings and correspondence, but that of characterising or holding himself out as an Advocate. It is not about him signing pleadings or correspondence as an Advocate. Yet, the material that the applicants placed on record, in their application of 23rd March 2026, and the affidavits that Mr. Maalim swore on 1st April 2026 and 6th May 2026, all have correspondence that Mr. Kilimo wrote to Mr. Okuta, the Advocate for the respondents. The fact that that correspondence was exchanged is not denied. Mr. Maalim seeks to justify Mr. Kilimo corresponding with the Advocate for the respondents, on the basis that serving pupillage allowed pupils to engage in that kind of correspondence, so long as they did not identify themselves, to the persons addressed in the correspondence, as Advocates. Yet, Mr. Maalim has not pointed at any law which would allow a pupil, that is a person attached to a law firm to train and learn the skills, art and craft of advocacy, and who is not a qualified Advocate, to engage in the active practice of an Advocate, by corresponding with qualified Advocates. There is no law which allows that, for pupils are only allowed to draft pleadings and correspondence. 26.Drafting correspondence means nothing more than the process of writing the initial version of a professional communication, such as a letter, email or memo. A draft is a rough copy or version, not the final copy or version. Pupils do not write final letters or emails, for sharing with outsiders, for they are only permitted to do drafts or rough copies, which are then revised or apprised by their supervisors, the pupil-masters, before the said pupil-masters can then use the revised or final copy for correspondence with either their clients or fellow Advocates. At no time should a pupil correspond with an Advocate representing another party. The business of the pupil ends with drafting, or making rough or raw drafts of either correspondence or pleadings. 27.The fact that the correspondence that Mr. Kilimo drafted was sent out to Mr. Okuta, the Advocate for the respondents, meant that Mr. Kilimo went beyond drafting correspondence. I say so because a draft letter or email is not shared, it is the final which is available for sharing. That sharing should not done by the pupil, for the pupil has no authority, indeed he has no business or basis for sharing, for it should be the responsibility of the pupil-master to refine the draft, and thereafter share it with whoever it is intended to be addressed to. By sharing correspondence directly with the Advocate for the other side, Mr. Kilimo was acting beyond his position as a pupil, and he was, in fact, projecting himself, to whoever he shared the correspondence with, as an Advocate. He was acting as an Advocate, literally wearing the shoes of an Advocate. Yet, he was not one. That is where the problem was. 28.Mr. Maalim was the principal partner in the firm of Maalim & Associates, going by the material that Mr. Maalim has filed herein, and I presume that he was the pupil-master for Mr. Kilimo. It is disappointing that Mr. Maalim does not appear to understand or appreciate his role as a pupil-master. If he did, he would not be defending what Mr. Kilimo did, yet that is what he does in the affidavit of 1st April 2026, and in the instant application. He is asserting that Mr. Kilimo did no wrong. He asserts that Mr. Kilimo was entitled to fire emails to Mr. Okuta for the respondents, so long as he did not identify himself, in those emails, as an Advocate. One would wonder, so, in what capacity was Mr. Kilimo writing to Mr. Okuta, if not as an Advocate. Mr. Kilimo could only deal with Mr. Okuta as a fellow Advocate, not as a pupil, for Mr. Okuta was not, himself, a pupil, but an Advocate. A pupil is not qualified to correspond with an Advocate. A pupil is not a professional colleague of the Advocate. It was the height of professional discourtesy, and dereliction of professional duty, on the part of Mr. Maalim, to unleash a pupil on an Advocate, Mr. Okuta, and to have the gall to defend that discourtesy. Clearly, Mr. Maalim does not appear to have an understanding or appreciation of his role as a pupil-master, and of his professional obligations to his colleague Advocates, such as Mr. Okuta. 29.Mr. Maalim defends Mr. Kilimo on the basis that Mr. Kilimo did not identify himself as an Advocate in that correspondence. That may be so, but in what capacity was Mr. Kilimo writing to Mr. Okuta? Who was Mr. Kilimo, in the context of that correspondence? What authority or capacity did he have, to address Mr. Okuta? What business did he have in the matter, of writing those emails to Mr. Okuta? He could only have been pretending to be an Advocate for the applicants, and as having the authority and capacity of an Advocate, in order to deal with Mr. Okuta on an Advocate-to-Advocate basis. Mr. Kilimo did not have to claim to be an Advocate, the very fact of writing those emails to Mr. Okuta, over a matter that Mr. Okuta was handling for the opposing side, clearly meant that Mr. Kilimo was wearing the shoes of the Advocate for the applicants. The language, in the affidavits of Mr. Maalim, betrays his attitude, that is Mr. Maalim, that he sanctioned and authorised Mr. Kilimo to do what he did. 30.Mr. Maalim also argues that Mr. Kilimo was an A-student at the Kenya School of Law, and went to the extent of exhibiting an examinations transcript. That was needless and irrelevant. The issue is not about the intellectual capacity of Mr. Kilimo, but about whether Mr. Kilimo was a qualified Advocate, at the time, to engage in the sort of business that he engaged in, of corresponding with Mr. Okuta. Mr. Kilimo might have been the best student, intellectually and academically, to have ever studied at the Kenya School of Law. He might have attained the best grades ever from the Kenya School of Law. However, that would be irrelevant, so long as he was not an Advocate, at the time he was exchanging correspondence with Mr. Okuta, in a manner which suggested that he was an Advocate. 31.The language of the emails, that Mr. Kilimo addressed to Mr. Okuta, would suggest that Mr. Kilimo considered himself, at the time, to be an Advocate addressing another Advocate. In the email of 16th March 2026, for example, he wrote, “Dear Okuta. To cut to the chase, our clients have instructed us to lay their demands as follows …” Mr. Kilimo, in that email, believed that the applicants were his clients, and, therefore, he believed himself to be an Advocate, and was acting as one. Mr. Kilimo had no clients, for the applicants were not his clients. Mr. Kilimo was just a pupil, being a student at the Kenya School of Law, he was not an employee of the firm of Maalim & Associates, he could not have had any clients, and the clients of the firm could not be treated as his. In his capacity as a pupil, he could not possibly have been expected to have any professional relationship with the applicants, least of all that of an Advocate-client. The applicants were the clients of the firm of Maalim & Associates, where Mr. Kilimo was on attachment as a pupil. 32.Mr. Maalim has argued that the reference to “our Advocates”, by the applicants, in the application of 23rd March 2026, with respect to correspondence between them and Mr. Okuta, was meant to refer to the actual qualified Advocates in the law firm, being himself, Mr. Horsefield, Mr Attalo and Miss Ndichu. Yet, the emails, attached to the paragraph of the affidavit of the 2nd applicant, which makes reference to “our advocates,” that is paragraph 9, were not written by either Mr. Maalim, Mr. Horsefield, Mr Attalo or Miss Ndichu, but by Mr. Kilimo. At paragraph 11, of that affidavit, the 2nd applicant talks of “our advocate” reaching out to Mr. Okuta, before the applicants could be attended to by the 2nd respondent. At paragraph 15, of the same affidavit, the 2nd applicant refers to an email being sent to “our advocate,” on 16th March, to respond to earlier questions. Yet, the correspondence referred to, in these paragraphs, is evidenced in the emails attached, which were written by Mr. Kilimo, or were addressed to Mr. Kilimo, and not to Mr. Maalim, Mr. Horsefield, Mr Attalo or Miss Ndichu. 33.For avoidance of doubt, paragraph 9 of the affidavit of the 2nd applicant, of 23rd March 2026, is in these terms, “Our advocates beseeched the Respondents to obey the order. They made numerous phone-calls and mails on the same. (Annexed hereto and marked “CIVY-2” is a document containing the emails sent by our advocates importuning for obedience of the order).” 2 documents are annexed and marked CIVY-2, being an email of 16 Mar 2026, 12:12, from Kilimo Nathan, addressed to info@okutaadvocates.com, and another dated 16 Mar 2026, 21:06, from Kilimo Nathan, addressed to info@okutaadvocates.com. Paragraph 11 reads, “It took the intervention of our advocate who reached the Respondents’ advocates for the 2nd Respondent to finally see us.” Paragraph 15 reads, “Their advocate sent an email to our advocate on the evening of 16th March responding to earlier questions about their disregard of the Order … (Annexed hereto and marked as “CIVY-4” is a copy of the response of the Advocates for the Respondent.” The document annexed, and marked as “CIVY-4,” is from Okuta & Company Advocates LLP, addressed to Nathan, the first name for Mr. Kilimo. 34.In his own affidavits, Mr. Maalim has not annexed any email correspondence between himself, or Mr. Horsefield, Mr Attalo or Miss Ndichu, on the one hand, and Mr. Okuta, on the other hand. Instead, what he has annexed are emails between Mr. Kilimo and Mr. Okuta. In the further affidavit of 1st April 2026, he has attached the email earlier attached in the affidavit of the 2nd applicant, dated 16th Mar 2026, 12:12, and added a second one, dated 18 Mar 2026, 08:57, from Nathan Kilimo to Okuta Advocates, where it is written, “Good morning, Counsel. We humbly request to be furnished with evidence of our clients’ failure to satisfy the intentional requirements.” In the affidavit of 6th May 2026, Mr. Maalim does not exhibit any correspondence between the actual Advocates in his firm, being himself, Mr. Horsefield, Mr Attalo or Miss Ndichu, instead he has attached the same emails of 16th Mar 2026, 12:12, and 18 Mar 2026, 08:57, that Mr. Kilimo had written to Mr. Okuta. 35.Anyone of average intelligence would immediately see that there was something untidy about the application, dated 23rd March 2026. It is founded on material that had been generated by a pupil, masquerading as an Advocate, addressed to an actual Advocate representing the opposing party. It would also appear that it was the pupil who drew the application, for if it were drawn by a qualified Advocate, unless he or she suffered some level of incompetence or inexperience, he or she would have been wary of attaching, as evidence, to support the application, documents, to be read by the Judge, which had not been written or prepared by an Advocate, but by a pupil masquerading as an Advocate. 36.It would appear that Mr. Okuta sensed that Mr. Kilimo was not an Advocate, for in some of his responses to the emails by Mr. Kilimo, he enquired as to whether Mr. Kilimo was on record for the applicants. That is evident in the email attached to the affidavit of the 2nd applicant, of 23rd March 2026. It is not clear as to when Mr. Okuta wrote it, but it is addressed to Nathan, in response to an email from Kilimo Nathan, written on 16 Mar 2026, 12:12. The opening sentence reads, “I presume that you are on record for the Applicants in HCJR 73 of 2026.” If that query had been addressed adequately, in good time, there would have been no need for the matter to be escalated to the Law Society of Kenya, and Chigiti J would not have had to defer determination of the application, dated 23rd March 2026, on its merits, to address that preliminary issue. It was in that context that Chigiti J stated that Mr. Kilimo had not sought to demystify his status, and his pupil-master, the Advocates on record for the applicants, who ought to have been overseeing what Mr. Kilimo was up to, had not taken steps to clear the air, in terms of explaining who Mr. Kilimo was, in the circumstances of the instant litigation. 37.Faced with such unprofessional conduct, which I have discussed in the paragraphs hereabove, Chigiti J had no hesitation, but to address that issue as a matter of priority, before adverting to the principal issue raised in the application, dated 23rd March 2026. The attitude, by Mr. Maalim, in his application, dated 6th May 2026, is that the Judge ought not have done that, and that what should have been done, instead, should have been to ignore the matter of Mr. Kilimo, being unqualified to engage in what he was engaged in, and that the court should have proceeded to determine the application, dated 23rd March 2026, on its merits. His application, dated 6th May 2026, is geared to correct that supposed error or wrong on the part of Chigiti J. 38.What Mr. Maalim appears to forget, or not know, or not understand, or not appreciate, or ignore, is the role of the court in ensuring professional hygiene within the legal profession. Judges are Advocates of the High Court of Kenya, and members of the Law Society of Kenya. They became Advocates first, before they were appointed Judges. Advocates are admitted to the Roll of Advocates, which is maintained by the court, and kept under the custody of the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary. That makes Advocates officers of the court. Judges of the High Court are in a very unique position, so far as conduct of Advocates, with respect to matters in court are concerned. There is a duty to ensure that Advocates, appearing before the court, or filing matters in court, live up to the standards of the profession, and there is an obligation to work with the Law Society of Kenya, to ensure proper maintenance of those high standards. A drop in the standards would not only be a blemish on the legal profession, but also on the court and the entire legal system. 39.In view of the above, the court cannot turn a blind eye to any form of unprofessional or improper conduct, in the handling of court matters, which is likely to bring the legal profession and the court system to disrepute, that comes to its notice, at any stage of the court proceedings, whether it manifests itself in the documents filed in court, or in the actual conduct of the Advocates appearing before the court. Such unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct would go to the integrity of the court process, and it should be addressed as a matter of priority. There cannot, therefore, be an issue of the court being mistaken in anyway, when confronted with such improper or unprofessional conduct, and where it has to address it, ahead of any other court business. 40.I find it incredibly disappointing, that Mr. Maalim has chosen to take this route, instead of merely complying with the directions in the order of 24th April 2026. Regularisation of representation would have meant nothing more than Mr. Maalim merely informing the court that Mr. Kilimo was not an Advocate, and that what he, Mr. Kilimo, had done was unfortunate, and thereafter to proceed to have the matter progressed by the actual Advocates in the firm of Maalim & Associates. There is no error on the record to be corrected, all there is, is for hygiene to be restored to the proceedings, which Mr. Maalim does not appear to be willing to do. 41.That unwillingness exposes him. It looks like defiance of the court, or impunity, in terms of unwillingness to submit to the authority of the court, for the purpose of maintenance of order and decorum in court business. It also exposes unwillingness to concede wrongdoing, yet to err is human, and anyone can err. It exposes that Mr. Maalim may not be altogether clear on what his role as a pupil-master is, and also lack of clarity on the scope of the activities that a student at the Kenya School of Law, attached to a law-firm, on pupillage, is to engage in, and where the boundaries lie with respect to such a pupil. It could also be exposing that Mr. Maalim could be using law students on pupillage, as his employees, to undertake roles that ought to be only undertaken by Advocates. 42.I am persuaded that Chigiti J would have struck out the application dated 23rd March 2026, had the affidavit of Mr. Maalim, sworn on 1st April 2026, come to his notice. That affidavit exposes the extent to which the standards of advocacy and lawyering have gone down in this country, and the levels to which some Advocates are willing to go, to defend actions that are completely contrary to professional conduct and etiquette. 43.As indicated above, no error or mistake, on the part of the court, has been demonstrated, to warrant the review sought. Mr. Maalim has achieved the objective of the order that Chigiti J had made, through the instant application, and that is bringing clarity on the status of Mr. Kilimo in these proceedings. It has been clarified that he was not, at all material times, an Advocate, and, going forward, these proceedings, inclusive of the application, dated 23rd March 2026, shall be prosecuted by an Advocate, and the material upon which it is premised shall be material generated by an Advocate. If Mr. Maalim felt strongly that there was improper exercise of discretion, to make the orders that were made, then the proper course of action would have been to appeal the impugned decision, not to apply for its review, for the review jurisdiction does not address exercise of discretion. 44.To move the matter forward, I shall direct that the said application, dated 23rd March 2026, shall be canvassed by way of written submissions, to be filed and exchanged within 21 days of the date of this order. The matter shall be mentioned, on 22nd July 2026, for compliance, and allocation of a date for ruling. In the meantime, let the Deputy Registrar cause a certified copy of this ruling, and that dated 24th April 2026, to be made available to the Director of the Kenya School of Law, to inform on how some of the students of that institution are conducting themselves in the course of the pupillage programme, and to the Secretary of the Law Society of Kenya, to inform on how some Advocates, in their capacity as pupil-masters, are either abusing or misusing students on pupillage. Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, VIA EMAIL, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT MILIMANI, NAIROBI, ON THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026.W MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. Abdirahman, Court Assistant.AdvocatesMr. Attalo, instructed by Maalim & Associates, Advocates for the ex parte applicants.Mr. Okuta, instructed by Okuta & Company Advocates LLP, for the respondents.