Chabari v All Saints Senior Boys’ Academy & another (Cause E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2384 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that pleadings filed by an advocate without a current practising certificate remain valid, thanks to binding Supreme Court authority.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the pleadings filed by the claimant are invalid for being drawn by an Advocate without a Practising Certificate
Key legal issues
#Validity of pleadings drawn by an advocate without a current practising certificate
The pleadings are not invalid; the Supreme Court's holding in National Bank of Kenya v Anaj Warehousing, though the judge disagrees with its reasoning, binds the court and applies equally to pleadings.
Section 9(c) of the Advocates Act requires a practising certificate to act as an advocate, and section 34 prohibits unqualified persons from drawing documents. However, the Supreme Court in National Bank of Kenya v Anaj Warehousing held that documents prepared by an advocate lacking a current practising certificate are not invalid. The judge considers this interpretation contrary to section 9(c) but is bound by it, extending it mutatis mutandis to pleadings, and therefore dismissed the application.
Legal principles established
#- A document or pleading prepared by an advocate who was not holding a current practising certificate is not thereby invalid under section 34 of the Advocates Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 26th February 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules; application under the Advocates Act, sections 9 and 34
Relief refused
#Striking out of the claimant's pleadings and dismissal of the suit for want of a current practising certificate
The Supreme Court's decision in National Bank of Kenya Limited v Anaj Warehousing binds the court; documents prepared by an advocate without a current practising certificate are not invalid.
Costs
The motion was dismissed with costs to the claimant.
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.
no instrument or document of conveyance becomes invalid under section 34(1) (a) of the Advocates Act, only by dint of its having been prepared by an advocate who at the time was not holding a current practising certificate.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of section 34(1)(a) of the Advocates Act should apply also to subsection (1) (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).
I proceed to hold that the Notice of Motion dated 26th February 2025 has no merits and it is dismissed with costs to the claimant.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records an internal tension between the binding Supreme Court authority and the court's own view of section 9(c), acknowledged on the face of the ruling.
The claimant's advocate's name appears variously as 'Nyangoya Angwata Francis' and 'Nyangoya Francis Agwata' within the judgment.
The case title, suit number and neutral citation are not stated in the text provided.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chabari v All Saints Senior Boys’ Academy & another (Cause E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2384 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2384/eng@2025-08-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.