Geoffrey Orao-Obura v Martha Karambu Koome
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that an appeal signed by an advocate without a current practising certificate is invalid and will be struck out.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an appeal filed and signed by an advocate without a valid practising certificate is competent
- 2.Whether English common law on unqualified solicitors applies to displace section 9 of the Advocates Act
Key legal issues
#Effect of filing an appeal through an advocate without a practising certificate
The memorandum of appeal signed by such an advocate is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Section 9(c) of the Advocates Act requires a practising certificate in force for a person to be qualified to act as an advocate. It was undisputed that Khamati held no certificate in 2000 when the appeal was filed and signed. The provision is unambiguous and mandatory, so the filing is a nullity and the appeal is struck out.
Applicability of English common law on unqualified solicitors
English common law does not apply; Kenyan written law, principally the Advocates Act, governs.
The respondent argued, relying on English common law, that proceedings are not invalidated merely because a litigant's solicitor lacked a practising certificate. The court held that under section 3(1) of the Judicature Act, jurisdiction is exercised in conformity with the Constitution and written laws first; common law applies only so far as written laws do not extend or apply. The Advocates Act covers the field.
Legal principles established
#- A memorandum of appeal signed by an advocate not holding a current practising certificate is incompetent and must be struck out.
- Section 9 of the Advocates Act is mandatory and displaces English common law on unqualified practitioners.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal struck out with costs to the applicant (respondent), including costs of the Notice of Motion dated 26 February 2001
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court at Nairobi
- HCCC No 473 of 1998 (OS)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 3(1) of the Judicature Act (Cap 8); appeal under the Advocates Act framework
Relief refused
#Respondent's submission that unqualified acts remain valid absent client awareness
Rejected as based on English common law inapplicable where statute governs
Costs
Appeal struck out with costs to the applicant including the costs of the Notice of Motion dated 26 February 2001
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.
The provisions of section 9 are unambiguous and mandatory and the principles of common law do not apply as the jurisdiction of this court is to be exercised in conformity with the Constitution and subject thereto, all other written laws.
Accordingly, we strike out the appeal with costs thereof to the applicant including the costs of the Notice of Motion dated 26 February, 2001.
the memorandum of appeal is incompetent having been signed by an advocate who is not entitled to appear and conduct any matter in this Court or in any other court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Geoffrey Orao-Obura v Martha Karambu Koome", Case Analysis (2001). Civil Appeal No 146 of 2000. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/375/eng@2001-06-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.