Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Supreme CourtOtherPetition 39 of 2018

Republic v Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed & another

Supreme Court of Kenya
15 March 2019
David Kenani MaragaD. K. MaragaMohammed Khadhar IbrahimM. K. IbrahimJackton Boma OjwangJ. B. OjwangSmokin Charles WanjalaS. C. WanjalaNjoki Susanna NdunguNjoki NdunguIsaac LenaolaI. Lenaola
3,562 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya LawDownload the judgment (PDF) Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Supreme Court expunged lawyer's insulting submissions and warned future contempt.

What this practically means

#

The Supreme Court of Kenya ruled that Senior Counsel Ahmednassir Abdullahi acted disgracefully by calling the court biased and a 'train wreck' in his written submissions. He refused to remove those remarks when asked. The court ordered the offensive paragraphs erased from the record and warned that similar conduct in future will lead to contempt proceedings and penalties.

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Supreme Court of Kenya addresses contemptuous conduct by Senior Counsel Ahmednassir Abdullahi during proceedings before the court. The court examined Mr. Abdullahi's written submissions of 10 December 2018, which contained highly disparaging remarks about the Supreme Court, including accusations that the court was 'exercising illegitimate political power,' 'biased against the respondents,' and a 'jurisprudential train wreck.' Despite being prompted by the court to expunge these remarks, Mr. Abdullahi refused, stating he stood by them and was ready to face contempt proceedings. The court found that Mr. Abdullahi, as an Advocate and Officer of the court, conducted himself in a 'disgraceful and reprehensible manner,' falling short of the standards expected of an advocate, particularly one holding the rank of Senior Counsel. The court reviewed the legal framework governing advocates' conduct, including the Advocates Act and the Law Society Act, and cited comparative jurisprudence from the UK and Australia on the duty of counsel to the court. While noting its power under section 28 of the Supreme Court Act to punish for contempt, the court chose not to apply contempt proceedings in this instance but instead issued a warning and prescribed governing principles for future conduct. The court ordered that all offending paragraphs be expunged and obliterated from the record, and warned that any future default would occasion contempt-of-court proceedings with appropriate sanctions.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the written and oral submissions of Senior Counsel Mr. Abdullahi constituted conduct unbecoming of an Advocate and an officer of the court
  2. 2.What principles govern the conduct of advocates, particularly Senior Counsel, when appearing before the Supreme Court
  3. 3.What orders should be made regarding the offending submissions

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether Senior Counsel Mr. Abdullahi's written and oral submissions constituted conduct unbecoming of an advocate and an officer of the court.

Holding

Yes, the submissions contained highly disparaging remarks about the Supreme Court, including accusations of exercising 'illegitimate political power,' being 'biased,' and acting as a 'surrogate of the State,' which were wilfully disrespectful and calculated to lower the dignity of the court.

Reasoning

The court examined the written submissions (paragraphs 1-15) and oral statements made by Mr. Abdullahi, which included phrases such as 'exercising illegitimate political power,' 'the court is biased against the respondents,' and 'this court is a jurisprudential train wreck.' Despite being prompted to expunge these remarks, Mr. Abdullahi refused, stating he stood by them. The court found this conduct to be 'disgraceful and reprehensible,' falling short of the standards expected of an advocate and officer of the court, particularly one holding the rank of Senior Counsel.

p. 5
02

What is the proper remedy for such conduct before the Supreme Court?

Holding

The court ordered that the offending paragraphs be expunged and obliterated from the record, and issued a warning that any future default would occasion contempt-of-court proceedings with appropriate sanctions.

Reasoning

The court, while noting its power under section 28 of the Supreme Court Act to punish for contempt, chose not to apply contempt proceedings in this instance but instead to 'signal, reprimand, and for the future, prescribe lines to be adhered to by any Advocate.' The court ordered the expungement of the offending paragraphs and warned that similar conduct in the future would result in contempt proceedings and sanctions.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • Advocates must always treat the court with respect and decorum.
  • Disparaging remarks about the court are conduct unbecoming of an advocate.
  • The Supreme Court has inherent power to discipline advocates for misconduct during proceedings.
  • Offending submissions can be expunged from the court record.
  • Future contempt will result in formal contempt proceedings and sanctions.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.All the offending paragraphs of the written submissions of Senior Counsel Mr Abdullahi, as set out in paragraph [2] of this Ruling, shall not remain as part of the record of the Supreme Court, and shall forthwith be expunged and wholly obliterated from the record of the Supreme Court.

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

David Kenani Maraga
majority

Wrote the judgment

Mohammed Khadhar Ibrahim
majority
Jackton Boma Ojwang
majority
Smokin Charles Wanjala
S. C. WanjalaSCJ
Currently serving
majority
Njoki Susanna Ndungu
Njoki NdunguSCJ
Currently serving
majority
Isaac Lenaola
I. LenaolaSCJ
Currently serving
majority
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent disciplinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under section 28 of the Supreme Court Act, 2011 and section 56 of the Advocates Act

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.

All the offending paragraphs of the written submissions of Senior Counsel Mr Abdullahi, as set out in paragraph [2] of this Ruling, shall not remain as part of the record of the Supreme Court, and shall forthwith be expunged and wholly obliterated from the record of the Supreme Court.
p. 10 Final orders - expungement of offending submissions
It is clear to us that Mr Abdullahi, an Advocate and an Officer of the court, fell distinctly short, on his terms as an Officer of the court, and conducted himself in a disgraceful and reprehensible manner.
p. 6 Conduct of advocate as officer of the court
We thus, in this instance, make it plain that counsel shall not engage in such course of conduct as is depicted in this Ruling, and any default in that regard, in the future, shall occasion contempt-of-court proceedings, with the inevitable consequences, and if not, then appropriate sanctions for contempt in the face of the court.
p. 10 Warning and future consequences for contempt

Key timeline

#
2018-12-10
Senior Counsel Ahmednassir Abdullahi files written submissions containing disparaging remarks about the Supreme Court.
Date not specified in judgment
Supreme Court delivers ruling ordering expungement of offending paragraphs and warning against future misconduct.

Practical implications

#
For lawyers

Duty of decorum is non-negotiable

Lawyers must ensure all written and oral submissions are respectful. Even strong advocacy cannot include personal insults or attacks on the court's integrity. If you cross this line, the court may expunge your submissions and warn you. Future violations will trigger contempt proceedings with real penalties.

For businesses

Rule of law protects fair process

This ruling reinforces that courts will not tolerate disrespect, which helps maintain impartial justice. Businesses benefit when lawyers argue cases professionally without undermining the court's authority. A respectful legal environment supports predictable outcomes and trust in the judicial system.

For individuals

Your lawyer must respect the court

If you hire a lawyer, they must behave professionally. Insulting the court can harm your case and lead to sanctions. This ruling shows that even senior lawyers face consequences for disrespect. Choose a lawyer who advocates firmly but respectfully to protect your interests.

Frequently asked questions

#
What did Ahmednassir Abdullahi say to the Supreme Court in Kenya?+

He called the court 'biased,' accused it of 'exercising illegitimate political power,' and described it as a 'jurisprudential train wreck' in his written submissions. The court found these remarks highly disrespectful.

Can a Kenyan lawyer be punished for disrespecting a judge?+

Yes. The Supreme Court has power under the Supreme Court Act and Advocates Act to discipline lawyers for misconduct. Punishment can include expunging submissions, fines, or contempt proceedings.

What is the effect of expunging submissions in Kenya?+

Expunging means the offensive paragraphs are removed from the court record as if they never existed. They cannot be cited or relied on in any future proceedings.

Does this ruling change how lawyers argue in Kenyan courts?+

It reinforces existing rules: lawyers must be respectful. The court made clear that future disrespect will lead to contempt proceedings. Lawyers should avoid personal attacks and focus on legal arguments.

Later judgments citing this (25)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed & another", Case Analysis (2019). Petition 39 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2019/47/eng@2019-03-15

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