Julius v Chief Registrar of the Judiciary & 14 others
The bottom line
#Supreme Court strikes out bid to challenge judge recusal orders due to wrong procedure.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court has thrown out an application by advocate Julius Miiri that sought to challenge orders barring Ahmednasir Abdullahi's law firm from appearing before the court. The Court ruled that Miiri filed his application as a standalone miscellaneous case, not within the two specific appeals where the recusal orders were made. This violated clear procedural rules. The Court also found that Miiri, who was not a party to those appeals, had no legal standing to bring the application. The case was struck out with no costs awarded.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the motion as filed is procedurally flawed.
- 2.Whether a non-party to proceedings has the legal standing to seek a review of the Court's decisions.
- 3.Whether the motion meets the threshold for granting the orders sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether the motion was procedurally flawed for being filed as a miscellaneous application not anchored on existing proceedings.
Yes, the motion was procedurally flawed because Rule 31 of the Supreme Court Rules requires interlocutory applications to be anchored on a petition or appeal, and Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act requires review applications to be filed in the specific matters where the decision was made.
The court examined Rule 31 of the Supreme Court Rules, which provides that interlocutory applications must be filed together with a petition or appeal. The applicant filed a standalone miscellaneous application, not in the two specific appeals where the recusal orders were made (Zehrabanu Mohammed SC v Nathaniel K. Lagat and Fatuma Athman Abud Faraj v Rose Faith Mwawasi). The court held that Article 159(2)(d) cannot cure a deviation from clear constitutional and statutory guidelines, citing Aramat v Lempaka and Odinga v IEBC.
Whether a non-party to proceedings has locus standi to seek review of the court's recusal decisions.
No, the applicant, who was not a party to the underlying proceedings and did not seek to be enjoined, lacked locus standi to bring the application.
The court applied its decision in Law Society of Kenya v Communications Authority of Kenya, holding that a proper party must have a designed, subsisting, direct and substantive interest in the litigation. While Article 22 of the Constitution allows parties to contest rights violations, the proper point of entry is the High Court, not the Supreme Court. The applicant was a 'passer-by' disgruntled with a decision, not a party with locus standi.
Legal principles established
#- Interlocutory applications in the Supreme Court must be filed within an existing petition or appeal, not as standalone miscellaneous cases.
- Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution cannot cure a fundamental failure to follow clear procedural rules.
- A person who is not a party to a case lacks standing to seek review of that case's decisions, even if acting in public interest.
- To have standing, a party must have a direct, subsisting, and substantive interest in the litigation.
- A review application under Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act must be filed in the specific matter where the challenged decision was made.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated January 30, 2025 and filed on February 4, 2025 is hereby struck out.
- 2.There shall be no orders as to costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 2, 3(1), 10, 19, 20(1)(2)(3), 22(1)(2), 25, 47, 48, 50(1), 163(7), 258 & 259 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Sections 3, 14(5) and 21(7) of the Supreme Court Act No. 7 of 2011; Rules 3, 20, 32 of the Supreme Court Rules
Relief refused
#Review and setting aside of the recusal decisions of January 23, 2024 and January 22, 2025 as against the 2nd to 15th respondents
The application was procedurally flawed and the applicant lacked locus standi.
Costs
There shall be no orders as to costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Similarly and applying our determination in LSK v CAK (supra) we find that the applicant, while well intentioned, had no locus standi to bring the miscellaneous application that is before us.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Follow correct procedure for Supreme Court filings
Do not file standalone miscellaneous applications in the Supreme Court. Any interlocutory or review application must be anchored on a pending petition or appeal, and filed within that specific matter. Failure to do so will result in automatic striking out, regardless of the merits of your case. Article 159(2)(d) will not save you.
Understand who can challenge court orders
If you are not a party to a court case, you generally cannot challenge that court's decisions, even if you believe the decision affects the public interest. To have standing, you must have a direct and substantive interest in the matter. If you want to intervene, you must seek to be formally joined as a party early in the proceedings.
Public interest does not bypass court rules
You cannot use public interest as a reason to bypass procedural rules in the Supreme Court. Even if your goal is to correct a perceived injustice, you must follow the correct legal process. If you are not a party to a case, your proper entry point is the High Court, not the Supreme Court. Acting as a 'passer-by' will get your case struck out.
Frequently asked questions
#Can I file a miscellaneous application in the Supreme Court of Kenya without an existing case?+
No. The Supreme Court has ruled that all interlocutory applications must be anchored on a pending petition or appeal. Filing a standalone miscellaneous application is procedurally flawed and will be struck out.
What is locus standi in Kenya and why did the court say Julius Miiri lacked it?+
Locus standi means legal standing to bring a case. The court said Miiri lacked it because he was not a party to the two appeals where the recusal orders were made. He had no direct, subsisting interest in those cases, so he could not seek review of their decisions.
Can Article 159(2)(d) of the Kenyan Constitution cure procedural mistakes in the Supreme Court?+
No. The Supreme Court has clarified that Article 159(2)(d), which promotes substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, cannot cure a fundamental failure to follow clear procedural rules set out in the Supreme Court Act and Rules.
How do I apply for review of a Supreme Court decision in Kenya?+
You must file the review application in the specific matter where the decision you want reviewed was made. You must also be a party to that matter or have been formally joined. A standalone miscellaneous application will not be accepted.
Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Owiyo) & another v Owiyo & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E029 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4895 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4895 (KLR)30 Jul 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Julius v Chief Registrar of the Judiciary & 14 others", Case Analysis (2025). Application E001 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2025/7/eng@2025-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.