Supreme Court judges have asked the High Court to strike out two separate cases challenging the ban on senior lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi and his associates.
In an objection filed before High Court judge Chacha Mwita, judges of the highest court in the land argued that the court has no powers to entertain the cases.
Chief Justice Martha Koome, her deputy Philomena Mwilu and justices Mohamed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung'u, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko argued that it is a breach of court's hierarchy to entertain the cases.
Their lawyers Kamau Karori, Ochieng Oduol and Milly Odari argued that the letter sent to Ahmednasir was an administrative decision, which was formalised to a verdict by the judges' recusal on January 23, this year.
Immunity
They were responding to the cases filed by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) and another filed by Ahmednasir's law firm and his associates.
"The letter is not a decision but merely conveyed the decision of the judges of the Supreme Court not to give audience to the first interested party, which decision was formalised by the recusal order made by the judges of the Supreme Court on January 23, 2024," the response reads in part.
At the same time, they argued that they enjoy immunity from being personally sued for decisions they make while discharging their judicial duties.
According to the seven judges, the court should either terminate the case in its entirety or order their names to be expunged from the pleadings.
They asserted that the only avenue that Ahmednasir and his law firm have is challenging the decision before them.
On the other hand, LSK asked the court to order the three lawyers to choose whether they will represent the Supreme Court or the judges and the registrar of that court.
According to LSK lawyer Wilfred Nderitu, it was improper for the lawyers to appear for both as the judges and the Supreme Court are listed as respondents and interested parties.
In the meantime, lawyer Issa Mansur told the court that Ahmednasir's law firm supports LSK's argument that the High Court has powers to scrutinise the ban.
In the case, Ahmednasir Abdullahi LLP alongside its 10 associates argued the ban does not enjoy immunity from being challenged before the lower courts as it lacks legality.
The associates, who are before the court, are Asli Osman, Peter Muchoki, Irene Jelagat, Esther Amboko, Cohen Amanya, Khadijah Said, Elizabeth Wangui, Bernard Ongeri, Tony Kiprotich and Mohammed Billow.
"The ban which is for an unspecified period of time is a draconian step against the petitioners and all advocates presently and in future, working for the first petitioner firm from representing any client at the Supreme Court," argued Issa.
Issa told the court that judges of the topmost court abused their power as they did not give his clients an opportunity to be heard before issuing the ban.
According to him, they failed to disclose which part of the Supreme Court Act, the Fair Administrative Action Act and Advocates Act that they were relying on.
Further, Issa said that all others who were not a part of the standoff between the lawyer and the judges will suffer without being informed what sins they had committed.
He asserted that any of the seven judges who is aggrieved by the lawyer's comments should sue him.
