Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Andrew Barney Khakula v Law Society of Kenya & 1 other

REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts) Petition 33 of 2013 ANDREW BARNEY KHAKULA................................................... PETITIONER AND LAW SOCIETY OF KENYA...........................................1ST RESPONDENT THE HON ATTORNEY GENERAL ..............................2ND RESPONDENT RULING 1.When this matter came up for hearing today, 15 th April 2013, neither the petitioner nor his advocate appeared in court to prosecute the petition. This was despite the fact that the hearing date was taken by consent and the parties directed to file written submissions. They did not comply with the order and I accordingly directed that the matter do proceed for hearing. 2.According to the petition dated 24th January 2013, the petitioner, an Advocate of the High Court, seeks orders that the Law Society of Kenya Dress Code issued by the Council of the Law Society of Kenya on 21st January 2013 be declared unconstitutional on the basis that it violates Article 47 which guarantees fair administration action. 3. The petition is opposed by the respondents on the basis that the Council of the Law Society is empowered under the provisions of the Advocates Act (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Kenya) and the Law Society of Kenya Act (Chapter 18 of the Laws of Kenya) to issue regulations and directions regulating the conduct of advocates including the manner of dress in court. In so doing, the duly elected Council of the Law Society acts on behalf of the members. 4. What the petitioner seeks from this court is a review of the Advocates Dress Code which is to give guidance to Advocates concerning matters of dressing for purposes of appearance in Court in Kenya. On the material before the court, I am satisfied that the petition does not disclose a cause of action as he does not state how his rights have been violated or identify the manner in which the dress code infringes on his personal rights and fundamental freedoms. 5. The petition is frivolous and is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent. DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 15th day of April 2013.

page 1 of 2

D.S. MAJANJA JUDGE Ms Mungai instructed by KTK Advocates for the 1st respondent. Mr Mohamed, Litigation Counsel, instructed by the State Law Officer for the 2nd respondent.

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.