Havi challenges advocates disciplinary tribunal’s verdict on his misconduct in High Court
The tribunal had found Havi guilty of professional misconduct after he allegedly published defamatory remarks directed at fellow lawyer Allen Gichuhi.
Former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Nelson Havi has moved to the High Court challenging the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal's decision that found him guilty of professional misconduct.
In his legal challenge, Havi, through lawyer Georgiadis Majimbo and Sylvester Mbithi, claims that the tribunal's decision was fundamentally flawed.
More To Read
- MUHURI demands answers on alleged transfer of public seal from Attorney General's office
- Law students caught in crossfire of policy conflicts, budget cuts
- LSK warns IPOA of legal consequences over delayed police brutality investigations
- LSK calls for urgent action amid allegations of organ trafficking in Kenya
- High Court gives state 21 days to prove withdrawal of Gates Foundation’s diplomatic immunity
- Renowned human rights lawyer Pheroze Nowrojee dies
The tribunal had found Havi guilty of professional misconduct after he allegedly published defamatory remarks directed at fellow lawyer Allen Gichuhi.
The statements in question were made on Havi's official X account during a televised interview on July 12 and 13, 2021.
Havi, in his petition, claims that the decision violates both the Constitution and specific statutory provisions, particularly Section 79C of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act, which restricts the legal remedies available for certain types of online expression.
Code of Ethical Conduct
He also challenges the legal basis of the Code of Ethical Conduct applied in the tribunal's verdict, noting that it has never been formally enacted by Parliament.
"I seek to declare as unlawful and unconstitutional, and quash the proceedings in Disciplinary Cause Misc. No. 21 of 2022 in the matter of a complaint against Nelson Havi, together with the judgment convicting me of professional misconduct," Havi states in the petition.
He asserts that the tribunal erred in failing to recognise that reputational harm, if any, should have been pursued through a civil defamation suit rather than disciplinary proceedings.
Havi has also raised concerns over the delayed delivery of the judgment, which he claims was issued one year and four months after the hearing concluded.
"It goes without saying that the judgment, claimed to have been made and signed by the 4th, 5th, and 6th respondents on April 7, was only issued after persistent demands by myself. This delay offends my right to fair administrative action, including the expeditious disposal of a complaint before the tribunal," he states.
The presiding judge ordered all parties to exchange relevant documents and set a hearing date for July 28, 2025.
Top Stories Today
