Supreme Court declines to lift ban on lawyer Ahmednasir citing legal flaws
The judges questioned why none of the 15 lawyers employed at Ahmednasir Abdullahi Advocates LLP had sought to challenge the ban themselves.
The Supreme Court has refused to lift its ban on lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi and his law firm’s advocates from appearing before it, citing his continued social media criticism of the Judiciary.
A seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice Martha Koome dismissed an application seeking a review of the ban, stating that it was procedurally flawed and filed by a party without legal standing.
More To Read
- Legal standoff: Eight court cases stall petitions seeking removal of Koome, Supreme Court judges
- Supreme Court softens stance on Ahmednasir, hints at possible reconsideration
- Supreme Court to determine fate of 27 constituencies ahead of 2027 polls
- NIS set aside budget to disband Supreme Court, fire Koome - Gachagua
The ruling follows a petition at the Judicial Service Commission seeking the removal of the entire bench over its decision to bar Abdullahi and his associates.
The judges ruled unanimously against the application by lawyer Julius Miiri, who had sought to have the January 2024 ban overturned.
They determined that Miiri lacked locus standi since he was not among the affected advocates and had filed the request improperly.
“The application as filed is incurably defective and must be struck out,” the judges ruled.
They further questioned why none of the 15 lawyers employed at Ahmednasir Abdullahi Advocates LLP had sought to challenge the ban themselves.
Stand-alone matter
Miiri had filed his application on January 3, 2025, as a stand-alone matter rather than linking it to the original cases from which the ban originated.
“Mr Miiri has not filed the application in the matters where the decision for recusal was made by the court or in the case where the firm of Ahmednasir Abdullahi Advocates LLP was acting for an appellant. From a concise reading of Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act and Rule 31 of the Supreme Court Rules, Mr Miiri ought to have anchored his review application on the two specific appeals,” the ruling stated.
The two cases involved a dispute over land ownership in Eldoret by former President Daniel Arap Moi and another regarding inheritance rights between a Muslim widow and a Christian lover.
The judges acknowledged that Article 159(d) of the Constitution requires courts to deliver justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities but maintained that clear statutory guidelines must be followed.
Regarding whether a non-party to a case can seek a review of a court decision, the judges ruled that such a person must have a direct and substantial interest in the matter.
They noted that Miiri was neither part of the original proceedings nor had he attempted to join them to justify his request.
“Those lawyers working at Ahmednasir Abdullahi Advocates LLP on their part have not filed an application seeking review of the court’s recusal orders in the two matters, a right available to them if they are minded to invoke it. They have equally not filed pleadings in support of nor in opposition to the present application,” the judges observed.
In their ruling, the judges reaffirmed their position, stating that the ban remains in force unless properly challenged by the affected parties through the correct legal channels.
Top Stories Today
