NAIROBI, Kenya, Mar 14 – The Supreme Court of Kenya has dismissed an application by lawyer Julius Miiri seeking a review of its decision barring Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi’s law firm from handling cases before the apex court.
In its ruling, the court found that Miiri lacked the legal standing to challenge the orders, as he was not a party to the initial proceedings.
It also declared the application as procedurally flawed, noting that it was not tied to any specific appeal or petition, as required by Supreme Court rules.
“The Notice of Motion dated January 30, 2025, and filed on February 4, 2025, is hereby struck out. There shall be no orders as to costs,” the court ruled on Friday.
The court further noted that partners and associates of Ahmednasir Abdullahi Advocates LLP, directly affected by the recusal orders, had not formally sought a review.
The court dismissed their letter to the court highlighting procedural concerns as “mere correspondence” rather than a formal legal application.
Additionally, the judges clarified that the recusal orders applied only to cases directly involving Ahmednasir or his law and did not prevent other lawyers from representing clients in unrelated matters.
“The recusal order only applies when they are representing the firm of the second respondent (Ahmednasir) in court,” the ruling stated.
The dispute stems from a January 2024 Supreme Court decision after the court cited Ahmednasir for contempt following what it termed as a sustained media campaign against the judiciary.
Execessive orders
Following this, the court issued an order on January 23, 2024, recusing all seven judges from hearing cases involving Ahmednasir or his firm.
The bench issued a similar order on January 25, 2025, in another case where his firm was representing an appellant.
In his application, Miiri argued that the recusal orders unfairly impacted other lawyers at Ahmednasir’s firm and their clients.
He contended that the orders were excessive and violated the rights of the firm’s partners and associates not directly implicated in the alleged misconduct.
The applicant further asserted that the court had the inherent jurisdiction to review its decisions in the interest of justice.
Friday’s ruling marked the latest development in the ongoing standoff between the Supreme Court and Ahmednasir.
In January 2024, the court accused the lawyer of attempting to undermine judicial integrity through a publicsmear campaign.
The court’s decision to recuse itself from cases involving him sparked widespread debate within the legal community.