Goal Advisory Africa Limited (Trustee) & 376 others v Official Receiver & 4 others; Shah & another (Intended Interested Party) (Civil Application E590, E591, E592, E593, E597, E601, E607 & E615 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2025] KECA 104 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal kept pleadings filed by a barred law firm but stopped the firm from representing those clients further.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the applications, including whether the sub judice doctrine and Article 164(3) bar the Court from entertaining them
- 2.Whether Mali Advocates LLP is properly and legally constituted, and if not, what should be the fate of the pleadings filed in this Court by the firm
- 3.The question of costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the sub judice doctrine (section 6, Civil Procedure Act) barred the applications given the pending petition in Nairobi HCCHRPET No. E052 of 2024
Sub judice did not apply: the suits were between different parties and the subject matters differed; the pending petition sought revocation of the LSK letter and orders compelling the BRS, whereas the applications sought striking out of pleadings filed by Mali.
Applying the Supreme Court's test in Kenya National Commission on Human Rights vs Attorney General, the Court found the plea failed on two grounds: the parties were different, and the respondents produced no evidence that the subject matter of the High Court petition was the same. The Court held it could determine the applications without delving into issues pending before the High Court.
Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to determine issues not arising in the court appealed from, given Article 164(3) of the Constitution
The Court has inherent jurisdiction under section 3(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 1(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules to entertain interlocutory applications addressing the legality of pleadings before it; such applications are housekeeping matters within its jurisdiction.
Though Article 164(3) limits the Court to hearing appeals, section 3(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 1(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules confer inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process. Where it is alleged that pleadings were drawn and filed by an unauthorised person, the Court has power to enquire into the issue without usurping the High Court's unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 165(3)(a).
Whether Mali Advocates LLP was legally entitled to practice law when it filed the notices of appeal dated 5th December 2023
No. The LSK letter dated 5th December 2023 directing the firm to cease legal business was in force, had not been stayed or suspended, and therefore barred Mali from conducting legal business and lodging documents in Court.
The Court traced the regulatory history: registration on 9th November 2022 with a non-advocate manager, LSK breach notices under sections 9 and 37 of the Advocates Act, the lifting of the deregistration request on 27th June 2023, subsequent resignations of partners never effected at the BRS due to the Official Receiver's caution, and the BRS confirmation on 28th November 2023 that Dande remained manager. The Ambasi ruling spoke only to the position on 31st October 2023 and could not answer the later cease letter.
The fate of pleadings filed by an advocate employed by a firm barred from legal practice
Although Ms. Koile signed the pleadings as Mali's agent in contravention of rule 4A of the Advocates (Practice) Rules, striking out would be draconian; the pleadings were preserved, but Mali and its advocates were barred from further representation.
Following the Supreme Court in National Bank of Kenya vs Anaj Warehousing, the transgressor is the advocate, not the client; no client complicity was shown. Distinguishing Ngomeni Swimmers, the pleadings here were admittedly drawn and signed by a qualified advocate with a valid practising certificate, unlike the wholly unqualified firm in that case. The Court balanced access to justice against the LSK's regulatory mandate, preserving the pleadings while enforcing the disbarment of Mali.
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs of the applications, guided by the Supreme Court's holding in Jasbir Singh Rai that costs follow the event but remain subject to judicial discretion and the conduct of the parties.
The Court considered the background of the applications and the conduct of the parties. Given the mixed outcome — the strike-out prayers failed but Mali was barred from representation — the Court exercised its discretion to order that each party bear its own costs.
Legal principles established
#- Despite Article 164(3) confining the Court of Appeal to appellate jurisdiction, the Court possesses inherent jurisdiction under section 3(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 1(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules to entertain interlocutory applications, including enquiries into whether pleadings were filed by an unauthorised person, as housekeeping matters necessary for the ends of justice.
- Where a law firm is barred from conducting legal business by the LSK and the bar has not been stayed or suspended, the firm is barred from lodging documents in court, and advocates in its employment are barred from drawing documents on its behalf under rule 4A of the Advocates (Practice) Rules read with section 35(1) of the Advocates Act.
- The illegality of pleadings prepared in breach of the rules of practice lies squarely with the advocate and not the innocent client; striking out pleadings filed by a qualified advocate, without client culpability, is a draconian measure the Court will decline, while still enforcing the bar against the errant firm.
Court orders
#- 1.The prayer for striking out the notices of appeal and pleadings lodged by Mali Advocates LLP is declined
- 2.The firm of Mali Advocates LLP is barred from representing Goal Advisory Africa Limited (Trustee), Cytonn Integrated Project LLP, Cytonn Investment Management PLC, Birguy Lamizana & 81 others and Cytonn Investments Partners Sixteen LLP or any other party in Civil Applications E590, E591, E592, E593, E607 and E615 (all of 2023)
- 3.The orders do not affect Civil Applications E597 and E601, as no application for striking out was filed in those matters
- 4.Each party shall bear own costs of the applications
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Commercial & Tax Division)
- Nairobi High Court Commercial & Tax Division Insolvency Petition No. E063 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 164 of the Constitution; section 3(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; rule 1(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (inherent jurisdiction)
- Consolidated with
- Civil Applications E590, E591, E592, E593, E597, E601, E607 and E615 (all of 2023)
Relief refused
#Striking out of the notices of appeal dated 5th December 2023 and 11th December 2023 and all pleadings filed by Mali Advocates LLP
The pleadings were drawn and signed by a qualified advocate, Ms. Celestine Koile; the illegality lies with the advocate and not the client; no client culpability was established; and striking out would be draconian given Mali's unawareness of the LSK cease letter at the time of filing
SBM Bank's prayer for setting aside the orders issued by the Court on 27th December 2023
The strike-out applications failed, so the consequential relief fell away
Costs
Each party shall bear own costs of the applications by the Official Receiver and SBM Bank.
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.
Therefore, despite Article 164(3) of the Constitution granting the Court appellate jurisdiction, the provision, in our view, did not take away the Court’s power to entertain interlocutory applications which are meant to bring order to the proceedings before it.
Where it is alleged, as has been done in this case, that the pleadings before the Court have been drawn and filed by an unauthorised person, the Court has power to enquire into the issue. Therefore, these applications are a housekeeping matter, falling within the Court’s jurisdiction.
The spectre of illegality lies squarely upon the advocate, and ought not to be apportioned to the client.
Noting that no element of client culpability has been established and that the pleadings were filed by a qualified advocate without knowledge of the letter disbarring the firm, we believe that striking out the pleadings would be draconian in the circumstances.
a. The prayer for striking out the notices of appeal and pleadings lodged by Mali Advocates LLP is hereby declined;
b. The firm of Mali Advocates LLP is hereby barred from representing Goal Advisory Africa Limited (Trustee) Cytonn Integrated Project LLP; Cytonn Investment Management PLC; Birguy Lamizana & 81 others and Cytonn Investments Partners Sixteen LLP or any other party in Civil Applications E590, E591, E592, E593, E607 and E615 (all of 2023);
d. Each party shall bear own costs of the applications.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the Chief Magistrate's ruling (Ambasi, CM) as 30th October 2023 in the replying affidavit account but 31st October 2023 in the Court's own narration.
The judgment contains a likely typographical error in the chronology, describing the LSK letter lifting the deregistration request as dated 27th June 2024 when elsewhere it is dated 27th June 2023.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Goal Advisory Africa Limited (Trustee) & 376 others v Official Receiver & 4 others; Shah & another (Intended Interested Party) (Civil Application E590, E591, E592, E593, E597, E601, E607 & E615 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2025] KECA 104 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Applications Nos. E590, E591, E592, E593, E597, E601, E607 and E615 (all of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/104/eng@2025-01-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.