Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutNot stated in extract· [2013] KEELRC 455 (KLR)

PARMENAS KATHURI NGARI V AGS WORLD WIDE MOVERS (K) LTD [2013] KEELRC 455 (KLR)

Industrial Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
13 February 2013
JAJ. N. AbuodhaMOM. Onyango
128 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court struck out a review application because the lawyer who filed it had no valid practising certificate, and awarded costs against him.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This brief ruling of the Industrial Court at Nyeri dealt with an application for review dated 29th August, 2011. The court examined the evidence exhibited in an application dated 1st November, 2011, in particular a letter dated 12th October, 2011 from the Law Society of Kenya. That letter confirmed that the firm of Akalo Wanyanga & Co. Advocates was not registered with the Law Society and that Mr. Akalo Wanyanga did not hold a current practising certificate. On that basis the court held that the application for review was incompetent because it had been filed by an unqualified person. The court struck out the application and awarded costs of the application to the applicant. The ruling was dated at Nyeri on 30th January, 2013 and delivered in open court on 13th February, 2013. Only one issue was determined - the competence of the review application by reason of the filer's lack of a practising certificate - and the disposition was summary, with no further reliefs addressed in the extract.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competence of a review application filed by an advocate without a current practising certificate

Holding

The review application was incompetent as it was filed by an unqualified person and was struck out with costs to the applicant

Reasoning

The court relied on a letter dated 12th October, 2011 from the Law Society of Kenya exhibited in the application dated 1st November, 2011, which confirmed that the firm of Akalo Wanyanga & Co. Advocates was not registered with the Society and that Mr. Akalo Wanyanga did not hold a current practising certificate. Filing by such an unqualified person rendered the review application incompetent.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Court documents filed by an unqualified person not holding a current practising certificate are incompetent and liable to be struck out

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for review dated 29th August, 2011 is struck out
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the applicant
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in extract

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "PARMENAS KATHURI NGARI V AGS WORLD WIDE MOVERS (K) LTD [2013] KEELRC 455 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/455/eng@2013-01-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.