(1.):-HAS A DECLARATION BEEN MADE THAT THE proceedings-of-the-Arbitrary-DECISION-to-CLOSE-my-File by The Advocates Complaints Commission c/o The Secretary sitting at Cooperative Building, 20th Floor, Nairobi, delivered-and-issued on Friday 18th November, 2022 At 4:02 PM in Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 was illegal, null and void ab initio as they violated-and-infringed Article 47 on fair administrative action of the Constitution as read together with Article 50(1) on the right to fair hearing? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(2.):-HAS A DECLARATION BEEN MADE THAT THE that the proceedings entertained by the learned Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary in my Advocates Complaints Commission Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 were illegal, null and void ab initio as it lacked both substantive-and-procedural basis under Section 60 of the Advocates Act as read together with Section 60A of the Advocates Act? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(3.):-HAS A DECLARATION BEEN MADE THAT THE Respondent Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary by proceeding as they did on the Friday 18th November, 2022 At 4:02 PM in Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 breached the law and violated-and-infringed my fundamental-rights and freedoms of me the indigent Petitioner-Appellant by denying me the right to a Fair-Hearing as contemplated under Section 60A of the Advocates Act as read together with Article 47 on administrative-dysfunctions or impunity in the context of administrative-action; plus as read together with Article 50(1) on the provision of every persons' rights to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of the law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or an independent and impartial tribunal or body ; as well as read together with Article 50(4) CoK-2010 provision on evidence obtained in manners violating any rights-or-fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights to be excluded if the admission of such evidence would render the trial unfair, or would otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(4.):-HAS A DECLARATION BEEN MADE THAT THE ORDER-DECISION of the Respondent Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary to CLOSE-my-File as was made, delivered-and-issued on Friday 18th November, 2022 At 4:02 PM in Advocates Complaints Commission Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 of Erick Otieno Mango v. Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) was illegal, null and void and of no effect? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(5.):-HAS AN ORDER BEEN MADE THAT THE Respondent Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary's DECISION to CLOSE-my-File as was made, delivered-and-issued on Friday 18th November, 2022 At 4:02 PM in Advocates Complaints Commission Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 of Erick Otieno Mango v. Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) be DISCHARGED and SET ASIDE and that the Petition-Appeal Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 herein as amended be restored? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(6.):-HAS AN ORDER BEEN MADE THAT THE Respondent Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary's bear the costs of this Appeal proceedings and/or that such costs be subjected to the Legal Aid Act 2016 which establishes the National Legal Aid Service; while those costs in the subordinate Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary be borne by the unscrupulous defendants Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) and/or as well be subjected to the Legal Aid Act 2016 which establishes the National Legal Aid Service ... wherever instance each applies respectively? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(7.):-HAS THE APPELLATE ADVOCATES COMMISSION Re-analyzed and Re-evaluated the evidence-in-record afresh and arrived at their own independent findings... in light of the Appeal-Submissions before them as Amended ; Identified the Issues, Matters and Facts-of-Law for ddetermination and after taking into consideration Principles-of-Law that guide Judicial-Processes / Courts in the determination of those issues and applying the thresholds therein to the rival positions before them, pronounced themselves on those issues?... -Instances of which I rely on the authorities cited in my submissions above below including:-
(a.):-Okeno vs. Republic [1972] EA 32 ; and (b.):- Kiilu & Another vs. Republic [2005]1 KLR 174,
-IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(8.):-HAS THE PETITION-APPEAL COMPLAINT NO.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 HEREIN AS AMENDED been served upon the unscrupulous defendants Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates )? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(9.):-HAS A DECLARATION BEEN MADE THAT THE Respondent Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary
were strictly liable for contempt-of-court in my Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 case because of their acts-and-omissions which interfered with the course of justice in relation to the Advocates Complaints Commission's judicial-proceedings mandates ; contrary to and violating-and-infringing the Contempt of Court Act No 46 of 2016 ; which for purposes of
subsection (3), it shall be immaterial whether the interference was not intentional? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(10.):-HAS THE PETITION-APPEAL IN COMPLAINT NO.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 HEREIN AS AMENDED been allowed?
IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(11):-HAS A DECLARATION BEEN MADE THAT THE Respondent Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary by proceeding as they did on the Friday 18th November, 2022 At 4:02 PM in Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 breached-and-violated the Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003 (POEA), the Leadership and Integrity Act (LIA), 2011, Chapter Six and Article 73 of the Constitution of Kenya-2010 as read together with Articles 47 on administrative-dysfunctions or impunity in the context of administrative-action in Article 59(1) (h)(i)(k)?... and for which I seek judicial redress pursuant to Article 3 CoK-2010?
IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(12.):-That pursuant to Rule 25 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013, HAS / WAS THE APPLICATION THEREIN CERTIFIED AS URGENT AND SERVICE THEREOF ISPENED-WITH IN THE FIRST INSTANCE? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(13.):-That pursuant to Section 2,3,4(1)(2)(3)(5),5(1) of CAP 78 on 'Witness Summons (Reciprocal Enforcement)' as read together with Sections 64,65(1)(5),69,70 of the Evidence Act CAP 80 ; and as read together with Sections 53(3)(3A),4(d),6,6(A),6(B) and 77 of the Advocates Act CAP 16 on the Advocates Complaints Commission requiring persons to assist it on its duties and Sections 47(1)(2)(3)(a)(b) Article 47 on Fair Administrative Action, DID / HAS THE APPELLATE ADVOCATES COMMISSION SUBOENAED PPENNINAH NGONDI WAWIRA, PROSECUTION COUNSEL in the ODPP and thus COMPELLED HER TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES DETAILING THE SIGNATURES, RUBBER-STAMPS, DATES, VENUES AND ALL, of the unscrupulous defendants Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates (aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates)? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(14.):-HAS A DECLARATION BEEN MADE THAT THE Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary failed to consider the issue of admissibility, credibility and relevance of the documents-in-question prayed-for above courtesy of Penninah Ngondi Wawira, Prosecution Counsel in the ODPP as provided under Section 35(4) of the Evidence Act and thus urged the Appellate-Advocates Complaints Commission to to allow the appeal as prayed? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(15.):-HAS A DECLARATION BEEN MADE THAT THE Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary's lame-excuse decision to knowingly, deliberately, intentionally and erroneously conduct a tele-conversation / hearing / direct-examination lasting five-to-ten minutes as was made on Monday, November 14, 2022, instead of a full proper-hearing pursuant to Section 60A of the Advocates Act was impromptu, discriminatory, contemptuous, misleading, misguiding, defective,
incompetent, misplaced, bad-in-law and unreliable since I was even abruptly cut-off by my phone-battery dying... and was therefore effectively illegal, null and void? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(17.):-HAS A DECLARATION BEEN MADE THAT THE Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary proceeding as they did on Monday, November 14, 2022, in conducting a tele-conversation / hearing / direct-examination lasting five-to-ten minutes, disregarded and didn't observe all the Principles of Natural Justice in dealing with me, the seriously aggrieved GoK-imposed-indigence Petitioner-Appellant by knowingly, deliberately, intentionally, subverting-and-obstructing to facilitate a full proper hearing pursuant to Section 60A of the Advocates Act at the Commission offices at Cooperative Building, 20th Floor, Nairobi, as earlier envisaged in their letter on Monday, October 31, 2022 at 03:30:53 PM GMT+3? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(18.):-HAS A DECLARATION BEEN MADE THAT THE Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary's faulty-claim of admitting ONLY Documentary Evidence is Unfounded in-Law for having deliberately failed to consider my case-law / precedent authorities evidence on oral contracts?.. And that it was therefore corrupt, shoddy-and-shady, misleading-and-misguiding much as improper, null and void? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(19.):--HAS A DECLARATION BEEN MADE THAT THE Respondent Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary by proceeding as they did on the Friday 18th November, 2022 At 4:02 PM in Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 didn't accord me a GoK-imposed indigent any administrative-or-procedural fairness in reaching the Impugned Decision, as demonstrated by the evidence that the Respondent Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary didn't fully comply with the constitutional-and-legal procedural requirements defining the Hearing-of-Complaints whereby they flouted the procedural aspect of the process, never kept within its confines or allowed me any reasonable time for hearing? That 'twas a faulty procedure all through and through whereby its resultant arbitrary, impugned decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it?
IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(20):-HAS A DECLARATION BEEN MADE THAT THE 2 CID officers constituting the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary didn't carry-out any investigations as required and as I'd prayed to discern the matters-and-facts in law in-and-of the Conducts-and-correspondences between the parties with regards to forensic-audits of the phone-transcript correspondences held between Owade & Co Advocates, Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates, their employees and Migori Police Station Traffic Dept. / Base Commander / Akidiva Memorial Hospital
and/or I as elaborated in { Majanja Luseno & Co Advocates v Leo Investments Ltd and another [2017] eKLR }?; and
Mwaniki Gachoka & Co. Advocates v Aristide Brilliant Nkuomondo [2019] eKLR that correspondences are capable of giving rise to agreements, provided that there is an offer, acceptance and consideration..?; Nor that they didn't
corroborate or read directly from the letters-in-correspondences I wrote to civil-society-groups and recorded in my blog-sites as given in the above links? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(21.):-HAS AN ORDER BEEN MADE THAT THE 2 CID officers constituting the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary carry-out the statutory-and-constitutionally mandated requisite investigations that they'd initially maliciously disregarded-and-discarded as relates to forensic-audits of the phone-transcript correspondences held between:-
(a.):-Owade & Co Advocates of phone no.s: +254-5920231 and/or 0733615017; his employees of phone no.s:
(b.):-Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates of phone no.s: 0722433266;
(c.):-Migori Police Station Traffic Dept. / Base Commander Mr. Aggrey of phone no.s: 0722441650; and
(d.):-Traffic policeman Mr. Maingi of phone no.s:
(e.):-Akidiva Memorial Hospital of phone no.s: +254 776 388361 +254 722 255732 +254 722 228427; and/or
(f.):-I Erick Otieno Mango the Appellant-Petitioner of phone no.s: 0723047863 and/or 0764087863 ?
...as well as corroborate and read directly from the letters-in-correspondences records I wrote to civil-society-groups and recorded in my blog-sites as given in the provided links including:
(22):-HAS AN ORDER BEEN MADE THAT THE unscrupulous lawyers Owade & Co. Advocates
and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) render me full and unqualified apologies including statements in the widest possible newspaper-circulations plus unconditional admissions of liabilities for breaches-of-contracts in each respective instance? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(23.): -HAS AN ORDER BEEN MADE FOR pre-and-post judgement interests? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(24.): -HAS AN ORDER BEEN MADE FOR injunctions barring the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary from any further violations, discriminations or infringements of my constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(25.): -HAS AN ORDER BEEN MADE PURSUANT TO Article 23(3) as read together with Article 156(6) that I be granted appropriate relief to preserve my endangered fundamental rights-and-freedoms?..
Where 'appropriate relief' is defined as "a relief that is required to protect and enforce the Constitution "… a declaration of rights, an interdict, mandamus, or such other relief as may be required to ensure that the rights enshrined in the Constitution are protected and enforced" ; as declared in the authorities of EWA and 2 others v. Director of Immigration and Registration of Persons & another (2018) eKLR and Fose v. Minister of Safety and Security (CCT 14/96) 1997, ZACC 6, 1997? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(26.):-In this my Petitioner-Appellant's Application I therefore seek inter alia an order to the effect that this Appellate Advocates-Complaints Commission declare that a person shall be strictly liable for contempt of court in any case where the person does any act which interferes or tends to interfere with the course of justice in relation to any judicial proceedings... HAS THIS ORDER BEEN MADE? And that for purposes of Subsection (3), it shall be immaterial whether the interference was not intentional?
IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(27.):-HAS A DECLARATION BEEN MADE THAT I'm entitled to compensation by way of damages for violations of my constitutional-and-fundamental rights? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
WHICH OF ANY OF EACH INSTANCE OF THESE TWENTY-TWO PRAYERS, RETRIBUTIONS, PROTECTIONS, DECLARATIONS OR ORDERS SOUGHT BELOW HAVE BEEN GRANTED OR ENFORCED ? FOR THE GRANTED OR ENFORCED WHY HAVEN'T I BEEN DULY INFORMED OR WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? FOR THOSE NOT YET GRANTED OR ENFORCED, WHY IS IT SO ALMOST A YEAR DOWN THE LINE AND WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT?
Prayers, Orders, Restitutions, Remedies, Reliefs and/or Legal-Redresses Sought Plus Preferred Charges for the Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 Posted On Thursday October 6, 2022 Entitled:-Squeezed Final Submission Vol. 12 Subject To Deadline Extension:- ACC-Secretariat :- Ombudsman-Kisumu PDF-Attachment back to square-A ACC c/o OAG:
(1.):-A declaration that both first Owade & Co. Advocates ; then secondly Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) and I Erick Otieno Mango entered into valid oral contracts on different dates of June 2012 and December 2015 respectively for the purposes of processing of my accident case to its logical conclusion as clearly corroborated by the unfinished, half-baked / half-processed documentary-evidence trails ;
(2.):-A declaration that the termination of the agreement on 11th Jan 2016 by Owade & Co. Advocates when he tore the contract-form and instead unlawfully attempted to coerce me to sign a deficient affidavit claiming that he'd handed me over all the particulars of my case-file while wrongfully spoliating the Migori County Ref. Hosp. X-Ray with malice aforethought, and withholding the Migori Police Station P3-and-Abstract plus the Akidiva Hospital Medical Examination Report-Treatment Notes... and conditionally demanding for 1500/- and 3000/- for the former-and-latter thus prejudicing my case was unlawful, illegal, null and void ;
(3.):-A declaration that the termination of the agreement in June 2016 by Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) with malice aforethought prejudicing my case was unlawful, illegal, null and void ;
(4.):-A declaration that both Owade & Co. Advocates plus Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) jointly-and-individually were unjustified to terminate the agreements between us midway, and the fault was theirs based on their professional misconducts, criminal-conducts, malpractices, incompetencies and/or corruption to prosecute the matter to its logical having carried out the instructions halfway ;
(5.):-A declaration that I've suffered political-legal abuse, endless-persecution, crimes were committed and my rights-and fundamental -freedoms violated and infringed continuously since June 2012 after the accident ; for which I'm entitled to compensation by way of damages for violations-and-infringement of my fundamental rights ;
(6.):-Injunctions barring further violations, discriminations, infringements ;
(7.):-Subpoena Owade & Co. Advocates to produce the spoliated X-Ray as per Sec 47(1)(2) as read together with Subsection 6(B), Subsection 53(7), Subsection 60(11) and the Evidence Act Sec 80 ; for his aggravated-disciplinary-offences contrary to Sections 267(1)(2) on theft and 268(1) of the Penal Code on stealing as read together with Sec 275 for purposes of jailing Owade & Co. Advocates and his employees the mandatory 3 years provision ; and as read together with Sec 268(1)(20 of the Penal Code on fraudulent, illegal claims ; and Sec 317 with regards to conspiracy to defraud by means of extorting me of my documentary-evidence properties; and as well as read together with Sec 391 on Owade soliciting-or-procuring Mudeyi being an offensive act ;
(8.):-Refer both the unscrupulous lawyer-offenders Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) to the Disciplinary Tribunal pursuant to Sec 61(3) on the OAG exercise of disciplinary powers as read together with Sec 61(1) on binding orders & Sec 31 Advocates Act Cap 16 on advocates offences ; as well as read together with Sec 53(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9) and Sec 4(b)(e) and Sec 57(1)(2)(3)(4);
(9.):-Charge both the unscrupulous, miscreant, unprofessional, lawyer-offenders Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) Owade pursuant to Sec 395 Penal Code Cap 63 on conspiracy to:-
(a) prevent, defeat execution of enforcement of any written law ;
(b) cause personal or reputational injuries or deprecate value of persons or properties ;
(e) prevent or obstruct by offensive acts free, lawful exercise of trade with regards to Mudeyi to litigating my case ;
(f) effect any unlawful purpose ;
as read together with Sec 393 Penal Code Cap 63 on conspiracy to commit a felony & Sec 394 to commit a misdemeanor; with regard to subverting and obstructing justice; as read together with Sec 117(a)(b)(c)(d) as concerns defeating justice and interfering with witnesses with regards to destroying evidence contrary to Sec 116 of the Penal Code Cap 63;
(10):-Charge both Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) for their unscrupulous professional misconducts' aggravated-disciplinary-offences including disgraceful and dishonorable criminal-conducts incompatible with the standards or status of advocates pursuant to Sec 60(1) and Subsection 60(A)(1)(b)(c) of the Advocates Act Cap 16; as read together with Sec 60(4) to:-
(a) admonish them,
(b) suspend them for the maximum 5 years,
(c) strike their names off the roll-of-advocates, disbar and remove them from LSK,
(d) Fine them max Ksh 1 million,
(e) order them to pay me damages, reimbursements to the tune of the maximum compensation of Ksh 5 million provision
(11.):-Charge both the unscrupulous, unprofessional lawyer-offenders Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) for the offences of malfeasance for neglect-and-breach of official duties contrary to Sec 128 as read together with Sec 130 on disobedience of statutory duties ; then jail them both for the prescribed 1 year each pursuant to the misdemeanor in Sec 175(1)(2) of the Penal-Code Cap 63 on common-nuisance as regards unlawful acts-or-omissions in discharging legal duties thereby causing any common injury, danger, or annoyance; or obstructs or causes inconvenience in the exercise of common rights ; as read together with Sec 244 of the Penal-Code jail term of 6 months regarding criminal-negligence and recklessness on the same ;as read together with Sec 85(1) for KSh 100,000 fines and 2 years jail sentences each ;
(12.):-Charge Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) with common-intention and aiding-and-abetting crime jointly with Owade & Co. Advocates contrary to Sec 20(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) and Sec 21 CoK-2010 as evident in the signature patterns of their conducts, acts-and-omissions with regards to maladministration, unresponsiveness, corruption, compromising-and-prejudicing my case with third-parties and/or the defendant Kihara-Construction without my consent ; as read together with Sec 396 and Sec 397 on Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) for being an accessory to Owade & Co. Advocates ; as read together with Sec 391 Penal Code Cap 63 on Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) neglecting to prevent a felony and instead joining parties and entertaining the malpractice, criminal-conduct ;
(13.):-Protect me against the executive's political-legal abuses impunity of including abrogating the constitution and issuing unlawful, arbitrary, illegal orders to usurp, micro-manage and control independent offices and commissions contrary to Articles 2(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6), Articles 3, 11, 129(1)(2), 132(3),(a)(b)(c) and Article 243 CoK-2010; as read together with the enforcement-and-defense of the constitution pursuant to Article 23(3) CoK-2010 ; especially since the incumbent has vested interests with regards to ownership of the respondent Amaco Insurance Company ;
(14.):-Impound the Kihara-Construction vehicle KAS 535K and arrest its driver for violating the Traffic Act Cap 403 Sec 47 as read together with The Traffic Amendment Act No. 2 Sec 55(1), Sec 73, 42, 43 and Sec 58(1) and take my Kihara-Construction accident evidence-destruction / spoliation case to term and process my compensation damages for actual, punitive and special damages by the insurer of its KAS 535K Mitsubishi FH Canter vehicle Amaco Insurance with pre-and-post judgement interests and costs from the date of accident 14th June 2012 to the tune of KSh 10m+ ; as read together with Cap 405 on Insurance and Motor-Vehicle Third-Party Risks and the Evidence Act Cap 80 Sec134 on advocates misappropriation of clients' monies or assets ;
(15.):-Compensation for damages due to injuries, harm and losses inflicted-and-effectuated by their serious aggravated-disciplinary-offences by dint-and-reason of their professional misconducts and criminal-conducts pursuant to Sec 53(6) of the Advocates Act and Sec 31 since the harm, injuries and losses incurred out of mitigation-of-loss, loss-of-bargain and wastage-of-expenditure were caused by their breaches-of-duties in contract and negligence of the case which occurred as a result of their unscrupulous professional-misconducts' breach-of-duty-of-care, negligence and nuisance... conspiratorially with the other adversely mentioned accomplices including the OCS that tore / destroyed the original accident P3 ; as read together with Sec 32 on prosecution costs;
(16.):-An order that I should be paid my KSh 10m+ damages based on the principle that comparable injuries should attract comparable awards as stated in { Arrow Car Limited V Elijah Shamall Bimomo & 2 Others[2004]eKLR, James Guturi Kimani V Kamanga Wairegi(HCCA No.4133 of 1992), Mombasa Maize Millers Ltd & Another V Francis Mwalungo Wanje[2020]Eklr, Nyambati Nyaswambu Erick V Toyota Kenya Limited & 2 Others(HCCA No.66 of 2018); { Pain and suffering to me is an irreplaceable loss that a victim of the accident suffers immediately or soon thereafter the injuries are inflicted. The basic framework is adopted in McGregor on damages(15thEdition)(1988) para 1517;-" on the expression pain and suffering is now a term of art so far as they can be distinguished, pain means the physical hurt or discomfort attributable to the injury itself or consequence upon it. It thus includes the pain caused by any medical treatment
(17.):-Lost pay ;
(18.):-Move for additur ;
(19.):-Judgment and maximum sentences and fines for respondent convicts.
(20):-Any further reliefs, orders or directions that the ACC-Secretariat / Disciplinary Tribunal may deem fit to grant ;
(21.):-Recovery in damages for emotional-distress, pain-and-suffering and loss of amenities;
(22.):-Register the orders by the ACC-Secretariat and/or Disciplinary Tribunal for enforcement as per Subsection 6(A);
BACKGROUND
(C.):-Contentious Issues Mis-interpreted In Law-and-Fact, Mis-informed, Mis-comprehended, Mis-directed, Mis-guided, Mis-led by The learned Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary In Arriving At Their Inconclusive, Defective, Arbitrary, Biased, Discriminative, Political-Legal Abuse Decision Herein Exhaustively Addressed and/or Re-Addressed by Me The Petitioner-Appellant
-(d2.)-"...Further, your allegation has not been backed by any evidence authorizing us to inquire deeper into the complaint, thus lacking 'substance'..." ;Petitioner-Appellant Argument:
-This is where the intentional, deliberate, misdirection-and-misleading of the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary comes-in with regards to behind-the-scenes corruption as concerns the world-renown impunity of the Office of the Attorney General of Kenya's specialization to always shield-and-exonerate the corrupt-executive and his economy-cartels cronies from prosecution ; as was demonstrated in the US sanctioning of the former AG Amos Wako, his wife and son.
-This is especially so cause the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary's deficient allegation comes in the backdrop of when I'd jus' sent a letter on Thursday, Nov 17th 2022 at 4:10 PM to the Prosecution Counsel Peninnah Ngondi Wawira in the ODPP at penwawira@gmail.com, among others including the ACC-Secretary Leah M Mutua at leah.mutua@ag.go.ke , the Advocates Complaints Commission at acc@ag.go.ke, the Attorney General Justin Muturi at communications@ag.go.ke and civil-society-groups at large ; where the subject-matter ( Subject:-Prosecution Counsel Peninnah Ngondi Wawira in the ODPP Plea To Avail by Office-Messenger or Otherwise The Three Hard-Copy Documentary Evidences To The Advocates Complaints Commission Secretary Senior State Counsel.Leah M Mutua ) addressed squarely your unsubstantiated allegations of... 'evidence authorizing us to inquire deeper into the complaint, thus lacking 'substance'..." ; -Did the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary liaise with the Prosecution Counsel Peninnah Ngondi Wawira in the ODPP to corroborate-and-verify the same? Nope. I can only read malice in the rush-and-shoddy manner you sped shifting goal-posts to arbitrarily deliver the discriminating, political-legal abuse decision on the following day Friday Nov 18th 2022 at 4:02 PM "{ Subject: Decision On ACC COMPLAINT- CC/PE/AUG/22/36 }...Good afternoon, Kindly find attached our response to your complaint lodged with the Advocates Complaints Commission. Yours Faithfully, }..."...devoid of the crucial documentary evidence to shield-and-exonerate the corrupt thief and ICC-Indicted executive Ruto's-AMACO INSURANCE from prosecution. Links of the same are as provided below:-
(e.):- Inconclusive, Defective, Deficient, Prejudiced, Discriminative, Arbitrary, Political-Legal Abuse Conclusion
The Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary averred inter alia erroneously that:-
(e1.)-"...It is noteworthy that you have failed, neglected and refused to cooperate with the Commission for the purposes of your complaint as clearly shown in your submissions..." ;
"...We have (in our communication to you) narrowed down what the Commission would need to pursue your complaint further but you have been insistent on explaining why what we have requested from you is not necessary..." ;
Petitioner-Appellant Argument:
-Without need of repetition, I submit that this is clearly another instance of the misguidings-and-misleadings following-on the deliberate misinterpretation of the matters-and-facts-in-law for purposes of subverting-and-obstructing the rule-of-law o shield the adversely mentioned from prosecution and exonerate them from liabilities...as implicitly-and-explicitly detailed elsewhere in 13(d2) above and that it's indeed rather the Respondent Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary who corruptly knowingly-and-intentionally failed, neglected and refused to cooperate with my prayers to liaise with the Prosecution Counsel Peninnah Ngondi Wawira in the ODPP at penwawira@gmail.com (for whom I've had to amend the prima facie Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 herein to subpoena her to produce the documentary evidences you needed) on the background of the letter I'd sent her on Thursday, Nov 17th 2022 at 4:10 PM entitled ( Subject:-Prosecution Counsel Peninnah Ngondi Wawira in the ODPP Plea To Avail by Office-Messenger or Otherwise The Three Hard-Copy Documentary Evidences To The Advocates Complaints Commission Secretary Senior State Counsel.Leah M Mutua ) before you rushed to arbitrarily-decide to close the file on the very following day seeing that the water-tight evidence had arrived... -The Respondent Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary failed, neglected and refused to cooperate in disseminating the case-law / precedent evidence authorities I'd submitted ;
-(e3.)-"...You are at liberty to appeal the decision of the Commission by exercising your rights as under Section 53(8) of the Advocates Act CAP 16..." ;"...Take note that we shall proceed to close our file. Yours faithfully, FOR: COMMISSION SECRETARY, ADVOCATES COMPLAINTS COMMISSION.
Leah M. Mutua Senior State Counsel..."
Petitioner-Appellant Argument:
-I've duly done so as explained in my Introduction where I sought leave to Amend the original Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 and anchor or ground it rather on Breach-of-Contract and not Tort pursuant to the provisions of Order 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 as read together with Section 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code ; for which I then proceeded forth to appeal the same as amended in my Section (D) reading ''The Appeal."
-(e4.)-"...Further take note that the Commission is not a court or the Disciplinary Committee. The Commission works with the Disciplinary Committee in prosecuting complaints and thus the court procedure dictates the operations of the Commission while at the Prosecution stage/before the Committee but not at the preliminary stages upon receipt of complaints..." ;
Petitioner-Appellant Argument:
-I submit that the Advocates Complaints Commission is a 'Quasi-judicial' entity as far as its administrative-mandates go which without need of repetition I've demonstrated in my Submissions from Paragraph 26-30 indicating it operates as a department in the Office of the Attorney General and Department of Justice whereby it's tasked with the mandate of enhancing the rule of law and administration of justice, as a regulator of the legal-profession in Kenya and for which it's partly responsible for the realization of the National Vision 2030 by administering justice and professional discipline in the practice of law ;
conducted by an administrative or executive official or organization that is 'similar to a court proceeding,' e.g. a hearing conducted by a human rights commission. A court may review a decision arising from a quasi-judicial proceeding. Quasi-judicial can also refer to a judicial act performed by an official who is either not a judge or not acting in his or her capacity as a judge. -The same is reflected in the Evidence Act CAP 80 Sec 3 on Interpretation which defines "court" as including all judges and magistrates, and persons, except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence; as well as Sec 34 (2)(a) CAP 80 which defines the expression "judicial proceeding" shall be deemed to include any proceeding in which evidence is taken by a person authorized by law to take that evidence on oath; and
-Practically, the same is self-evident in the conduct-and-operations of the Advocates Complaints Commission which so far has basically been replicating the court procedures right from the preliminary stage upon receipt of my Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 and the reason why we've gone through the give-and-take submissions stage up to the tele-conversation / direct-examination / deposition stage, the decision / ruling / judgement stage and now the Appeal stage. The Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary are thus evidently misleading-and-misguiding, shoddy-and-shaddy in their interpretation of the dictates of running the Commission.
(E.):-The Amended Grounds Of Appeal Are As Follows: - 21(a.): -THAT the learned Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary erred in both law-and-fact when they arbitrarily closed my case file relying on contradictory and inconsistent interpretation of the law and CoK-2010.
(b.): -THAT the learned Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary erred in both law-and-fact when they intentionally outta procedure misdirected themselves to unprecedentedly reject my cogent and plausible documentary evidence on authorities based on the norm of common law practice aka precedent or case law ;
(c.):-THAT the learned Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary erred in both law-and-fact when they disregarded-and-failed to consider my authorities authorities based on the norm of common law practise aka precedent or case law evidences ;
(d.):-THAT the learned Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary erred in both law-and-fact when they irregularly omitted to accord me an opportunity to testify in a fair hearing occasioning thus a subversion-and-obstruction of the course-of-law, due-process and ultimately a premeditated failure-and-defeat of justice that were curable under PART XII–SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS IRREGULAR PROCEEDINGS of the Criminal Procedure Code and as read with its relevant Sections cited herein including:- 380. Proceedings in wrong place. 381. Repealed. 382. Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error or omission in charge or other proceedings. 383. Distress not illegal for defect in proceedings. 384. Statements irregularly under section 246.
(e.):-THAT the learned Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary erred in both law-and-fact in the glaring procedural errors-and-omissions they occasioned when they should have displayed more diligence in the preliminary stages ;
(f.):-THAT the learned Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary erred in both law-and-fact in relying on subsidiary legislation to override the express provisions of Section 77 of the parent statute since it would be an affront to Section 31 (b) of CAP 2 Interpretation and General Provisions Act. ; Judicial bodies have the obligation to interpret the laws in a purposive manner so as to illuminate the spirit of the laws
(g.):-THAT the learned Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary erred in both law-and-fact and occasioned the miscarriage-of-justice when they did a shoddy-and-shady job in subverting the course-of-law by not carrying-out any substantial investigations to corroborate my allegations-and-claims, and/or curtailing the same, and/or relying on incomplete-investigations with regards to material inconsistencies ;
(h.):-THAT the learned Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary erred in both law-and-fact by breaching-and-violating Article 159 CoK-2010 which posits that justice must be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities ;
(i.):-THAT the learned Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary erred in both law-and-fact when they knowingly, deliberately and intentionally failed to analyze-or-evaluate the overwhelming evidence-on-record in my Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 to corroborate and find out the fact that me the Petitioner-Appellant had indeed established a prima-facie case ;
(j):-THAT the learned Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary erred in both law-and-fact by failing to exercise their discretion well or exhaustively, as a a result of which they reached the perverse, discriminating, biased, political-legal abuse decision;
I expect a response to my request for expedited processing within not later than the statutory forty eight hours (48hrs) two business days as required by the statute ATI ACT Section 28(1-5) which recognises that where the information sought relates to the life or liberty of a person as regards fundamental freedoms & rights the information should be provided within forty eight hours (48), which period may be extended for not more that fourteen days (14) where either:-
(i) the request is for large amount of information that would not be provided within the stipulated period; or
(ii) where consultations are necessary to comply with the request and the consultations cannot be completed within the stipulated time.
Please be aware that under the ATI ACT a request is considered constructively denied after twenty one business days and is subject to an appeal on that basis. If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all denials by reference to specific exemptions of the act. As the law requires, I will also expect you to release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material.
I reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information with the Commission On Administrative Justice-Office Of The Ombudsman established under Article 59(4) of the Constitution of Kenya and the Commission On Administrative Justice Act, 2011 whose mandate extends to both the national and county governments and is granted powers of overseeing and enforcing Administrative Justice and Implementation Of The Access To Information Act 2016 through complaints resolution including reviewing decisions issued in relation to requests for information as well as receiving and inquiring into complaints made under the Act; while their core values include responsiveness, independence, fairness and integrity.
I also reserve the right to appeal your decision to deny a waiver of fees since Under Part iii Section 7-12 I am entitled to a fee waiver on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government. In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request
Please send all the written and electronic details records, materials, documents containing the information sought directly to my the same address erickmango2006@yahoo.com you'd been replying-to in the deliberations of the Complaint correspondences held btw the Snr. State Counsel and I... in compliance with all laws-and regulations governing the ATI ACT Article 35 CoK-2010;
All further correspondence regarding this request can be directed to me at erickmango2006@yahoo.com
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 0723047863 or 0764087863
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention and anticipated cooperation to this request in this matter.
The above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023.
ERICK OTIENO MANGO
Director,
Solar System Media, Ltd.
+254723047863
erickmango2006@yahoo.com
erick-mango.blogspot.com
APPELLANT
Appeal virtually submitted and delivered in the knowledge of:-
The CEO Advocates Complaints Commission Mr. George Nyakundi
Leah M Mutua, Senior State Counsel and ACC-Secretary ;
Advocates Complaints Commission ;
Penninah Ngondi Wawira, Prosecution Counsel, ODPP ;
Justin Muturi, Attorney General ;
