Seven earth-like exo-planets in terms of size, density and solar-radiation orbiting their dwarf-star (sun) in TRAPPIST-1 Solar System 40 light-years away whereby three hang in the 'habitable zone' {in relative proportional-dimensions to earth from its sun} indicating they can support 'liquid'-water on the surface making them potential destinations for technogeneticultural anatomically-modern postranshominization civilizations to colonize for habitation should a catastrophe threaten us.
Monday, October 23, 2023
'Access To Information'-Complaint To The Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman To Review, Hear and Determine The Maladministration-Decision On My Petition-Appeal Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 herein as amended By The Advocates Complaints Commission c/o Office of The Attorney General In the Person of Its Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer, A Mr. George Nyakundi, Who's A Public-and-State Officer, and The Public-Institution Itself, The Advocates Complaints Commission In Violation Of Section 4(1)(a)(b) Access To Information Act No. 31 of 2016 as read together with Article 35(1)(a)(b)(3) CoK-2010 on the Right to information pursuant to Section 14(1)(a) of the ATI Act (2016) as read together with Section 23(1)(2) of the ATI Act (2016) on powers of the Commission as read together with Section 24(1)-(5) of the ATI Act (2016) Which I Require For The Exercise-and-Protection Of My Fundamental-Rights and Freedoms Continuously Violated In Behind-The-S
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Erick Mango <erickmango4521@gmail.com>
To: Erick Mango <erickmango2006@yahoo.com>; Erick Mango <erickmango4521@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 at 04:15:08 PM GMT+2
Subject: 'Access To Information'-Complaint To The Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman To Review, Hear and Determine The Maladministration-Decision On My Petition-Appeal Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 herein as amended By The Advocates Complaints Commission c/o Office of The Attorney General In the Person of Its Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer, A Mr. George Nyakundi, Who's A Public-and-State Officer, and The Public-Institution Itself, The Advocates Complaints Commission In Violation Of Section 4(1)(a)(b) Access To Information Act No. 31 of 2016 as read together with Article 35(1)(a)(b)(3) CoK-2010 on the Right to information pursuant to Section 14(1)(a) of the ATI Act (2016) as read together with Section 23(1)(2) of the ATI Act (2016) on powers of the Commission as read together with Section 24(1)-(5) of the ATI Act (2016) Which I Require For The Exercise-and-Protection Of My Fundamental-Rights and Freedoms Continuously Violated In Behind-The-S
Dear Sir / Madam
I'm an independent professional online-jobs virtual administrative-assistant and registered business entrepreneur, paralegal, French tour-guide / interpreter / translator, analytical-theoretical-researcher, public lecturer and career medical-geneticist contractor / counselor; though at the moment I am a penniless indigent living below the poverty line thanks to the GoK's political-legal-economic abuse impositions including discrimination in the Ruto-UDA-GoK alleged all-inclusive 'bottom-up' Manifesto Hustler Fund initiative designed to improve financial-access to those at the bottom of poverty; and 'selective-justice' delay-tactics in determining my broad lawsuit's hundreds-of-millions in petition-damages and retributions adding to backlog statistics with variant internal-dispute-mechanism bodies of different govt. agencies / departments. The application has been submitted in a hurry due to wanting resources because of GoK's imposed penniless pauperism but it contains the basic requisite details.
Pursuant to Section 14(1)(a) of the ATI Act (2016) on Review of decisions by the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) that (1) Subject to Subsection (2), an applicant may apply in writing to the Commission requesting a review of any of the following decisions of a public entity or private body in relation to a request for access to information— (a) a decision refusing to grant access to the information applied for,I file this
'Access To Information'-Complaint To TheCommission on Administrative Justice | Office of the OmbudsmanTo Review, Hear and Determine The Maladministration-Decision On My Petition-Appeal Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 herein as amended By TheAdvocates Complaints Commission c/o Office of The Attorney General In the Person of Its Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer A Mr. George Nyakundi, Who's A Public-and-State Officer, and The Public-Institution Itself, The Advocates Complaints Commission In Violation Of Section 4(1)(a)(b)Access To Information Act No. 31 of 2016 on the Right to information that:-(1) Subject to this Act and any other written law, every citizen has the right of access to information held by—(a) the State; and (b) another person and where that information is required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom... as read together with Article 35(1)(a)(b)(3) that (1)Every citizen has the right of access to--(a) information held by the State; and (b) information held by another person and required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom. (3) The State shall publish and publicise any important information affecting the nation....pursuant to Section 14(1)(a) of the ATI Act (2016) as read together with Section 23(1)(2) of the ATI Act (2016) on powers of the Commission as read together withSection 24(1)-(5) of the ATI Act (2016)...Information Which I Require For The Exercise-and-Protection Of My Fundamental-Rights and Freedoms Continuously Violated In Behind-The-Scenes High-Stakes Conspiracies To Obstruct and Defeat Justice and Exonerate The Adversely Mentioned Vested Interests' Executive Ruto's Amaco-Insurance; and thus I agitate the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman To Investigateinvestigate in to the prejudicial and improper conducts, acts-and-omissions including complaints of maladministration, delay, administrative injustice, discourtesy, incompetence, misbehavior, inefficiency or ineptitude, abuse of power, unfair treatment, manifest injustice or unlawful, oppressive, unfair or unresponsive official conduct within the public service sector by theChief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission, a Mr. George Nyakundi, a public-and-state official, and the public-institution itself the Advocates Complaints Commission in the National Government ; resulting in any impropriety or prejudice in public administration, and review, hear, determine,recommend compensation and other appropriate remedies against the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission, a Mr. George Nyakundi,jointly or severally, and The Public-Institution Itself, The Advocates Complaints Commission to which this Act applies; provide advisory opinions or proposals on improvement of public administration, including review of legislation, codes of conduct, processes and procedure, take appropriate steps in conjunction with other State organs and Commissions responsible for the protection and promotion of human rights to facilitate promotion and protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual in public administration... pursuant to its constitutional-and-statutory mandates as enshrined in Articles 59(2)(h)-(k) of the Constitution (2)The functions of the Commission are—(a)to promote respect for human rights and develop a culture of human rights in the Republic; (b)to promote gender equality and equity generally and to coordinate and facilitate gender mainstreaming in national development; (c) to promote the protection, and observance of human rights in public and private institutions; (d)to monitor, investigate and report on the observance of human rights in all spheres of life in the Republic, including observance by the national security organs; (e)to receive and investigate complaints about alleged abuses of human rights and take steps to secure appropriate redress where human rights have been violated; (f)on its own initiative or on the basis of complaints, to investigate or research a matter in respect of human rights, and make recommendations to improve the functioning of State organs; (g)to act as the principal organ of the State in ensuring compliance with obligations under treaties and conventions relating to human rights; (h)to investigate any conduct in state affairs, or any act or omission in public administration in any sphere of government, that is alleged or suspected to be prejudicial or improper or to result in any impropriety or prejudice; (i)to investigate complaints of abuse of power, unfair treatment, manifest injustice or unlawful, oppressive, unfair or unresponsive official conduct; (j)to report on complaints investigated under paragraphs (h) and (i) and take remedial action; and (k)to perform any other functions prescribed by legislation; (3)Every person has the right to complain to the Commission, alleging that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened.......as read together with the CAJ Act 2011 Section 8(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(g)(h)(j)(k)(l)(m) onits functions including:- (a) investigate any conduct in state affairs, or any act or omission in public administration by any State organ, State or public officer in National and County Governments that is alleged or suspected to be prejudicial or improper or is likely to result in any impropriety or prejudice;
(b) investigate complaints of abuse of power, unfair treatment, manifest injustice or unlawful, oppressive, unfair or unresponsive official conduct within the public sector; (c) report to the National Assembly bi-annually on the complaints investigated under paragraphs (a) and (b), and the remedial action taken thereon; (d) inquire into allegations of maladministration, delay, administrative injustice, discourtesy, incompetence, misbehavior, inefficiency or ineptitude within the public service;
(e) facilitate the setting up of, and build complaint handling capacity in, the sectors of public service, public offices and state organs; (g) recommend compensation or other appropriate remedies against persons or bodies to which this Act applies; (h) provide advisory opinions or proposals on improvement of public administration, including review of legislation, codes of conduct, processes and procedures; (j) promote public awareness of policies and administrative procedures on matters relating to administrative justice; (k) take appropriate steps in conjunction with other State organs and Commissions responsible for the protection and promotion of human rights to facilitate promotion and protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual in public administration; (l) work with the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and complementarity in their activities and to establish mechanisms for referrals and collaboration; and (m) perform such other functions as may be prescribed by the Constitution and any other written law... as read together with Section 22(1)(2)(3)(a)(i)(b) of the ATI Act (2016) on inquiry into complaints... (1) A person wishing to lodge a complaint under this Act shall do so orally or in writing to the secretary or such other person as may be duly authorized by the Commission for that purpose... that (2) A complaint lodged under Subsection (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as the Commission may, from time to time, prescribe. (3) Upon receipt of a complaint under Subsection (1), the Commission may— (a) call for information or a report regarding such complaint from the public entity or any other body within such reasonable time as may be specified by the Commission and— (i) if the information or report called for is not received within the time stipulated by the Commission, the Commission may proceed to inquire into the complaint without such information or report; and (b) without prejudice to paragraph (a), initiate such inquiry as it considers necessary, having regard to the nature of the complaint or as prescribed by the Commission...as read together with Article 47(1)(2)(3) on fair administrative action (1)Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair; (2)If a right or fundamental freedom of a person has been or is likely to be adversely affected by administrative action, the person has the right to be given written reasons for the action; (3)Parliament shall enact legislation to give effect to the rights in clause (1) and that legislation shall—(a)provide for the review of administrative action by a court or, if appropriate, an independent and impartial tribunal; and (b)promote efficient administration...pursuant toSection 24(1)-(5) of the ATI Act (2016)on powers relating to investigation that...
(1) The Commission may, for the purpose of conducting any investigation pertaining to an inquiry, utilize the services of any public officer or investigation agency of the Government and where a public officer is so utilized under this subsection, the Commission shall pay such expenses as may be incurred by the public officer or agency for the service rendered.
(2) For the purpose of investigating any matter pertaining to an inquiry, a public servant or agency whose services are utilized under Subsection (1) may, subject to the direction and control of the Commission—
(a) summon and enforce the attendance of any person for examination;
(b) require the discovery and production of any information;
(c) subject to the provisions of this Act, requisition any public records or copy thereof from any public officer; and
(d) take a statement under oath in relation to any investigation it is undertaking.
(3) The provisions of Section 23 shall apply in relation to any statement made by a person before any public officer or agency whose services are utilized under Subsection (1) as they apply in relation to any statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the Commission.
(4) The public officer or agency whose services are utilized under Subsection (1) shall investigate into any matter pertaining to the inquiry and submit a report thereon to the Commission on that behalf.
(5) The Commission shall satisfy itself on the correctness of the facts stated and the conclusion, if any, arrived at in the report submitted to it under Subsection (4) and for that purpose, the Commission may make such inquiry, including the examination of any person who conducts or assists in the investigation, as it considers necessary... as read together with Section 23(1)(2) of the ATI Act (2016) on powers of the Commission that:-
(1) In the performance of its functions under this Act, the Commission shall have the power to:- (a) issue summonses or other orders requiring the attendance of any person before the Commission and the production of any document or record relevant to any investigation by the Commission;
(b) question any person in respect of any subject matter under investigation before the Commission; and
(c) require any person to disclose any information within such person's knowledge relevant to any investigation by the Commission.
(2) The Commission may, if satisfied that there has been an infringement of the provisions of this Act, order— (a) the release of any information withheld unlawfully;
(b) a recommendation for the payment of compensation; or
(c) any other lawful remedy or redress...
...as read together withSection 21(1)(2)(3) of the ATI Act (2016)on(1) The functions of the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) to:-
(a) investigate, on its initiative or upon complaint made by any person or group of persons, violation of the provisions of this Act;
(b) request for and receive reports from public entities with respect to the implementation of this Act and of the Act relating to data protection and to assess and act on those reports with a view to assessing and evaluating the use and disclosure of information and the protection of personal data;
(c) develop and facilitate public education awareness and develop programs on right to access to information and right to protection of personal data;
(d) work with public entities to promote the right to access to information and work with other regulatory bodies on promotion and compliance with data protection measures in terms of legislation;
(e) monitor state compliance with international treaty obligations relating to freedom of and right of access to information and protection of personal data;
(f) hear and determine complaints and review decisions arising from violations of the right to access to information;
(g) promote protection of data as provided for under this Act or the Constitution; and
(h) perform such other functions as the Commission may consider necessary for the promotion of access to information and promotion of data protection.
(2) The Commission shall have all the powers as are provided for under this Act, its constitutive Act and the Constitution as are necessary for the performance of its functions under this Act.
(3) The decisions of the Commission shall be binding on the national and county governments...
...by effectuating its mandate established by the Commission on Administrative Justice CAJ Act 2011 pursuant to Article 59 (4) of the Constitution of Kenyaas read together withArticle 253(b) CoK-2010 regarding incorporated commissions and independent offices' capacity of suing and being sued in their corporate names; as read together withthe CAJ Act 2011 Section 7(a)-(d) on its guiding principles to act in accordance with the values and principles set out in the Constitution and the laws of Kenya, to observe and respect:- (a) the diversity of the people of Kenya; (b) impartiality and gender equity; (c) all treaties and conventions which have been ratified by Kenya and in particular the fact that human rights are indivisible, interdependent, interrelated and of equal importance for the dignity of all human beings; and (d) the rules of natural justice;... as read together with the CAJ Act 2011 Section 26on itsGeneral powers to: (a)-issue summons as it deems necessary for the fulfilment of its mandate; (b)-require that statements be given under oath or affirmation and to administer such oath or affirmation; (c)-adjudicate on matters relating to administrative justice; (d)-obtain, by any lawful means, any information it considers relevant, including requisition of reports, records, documents and any information from any person, including governmental authorities, and to compel the production of such information for the proper discharge of its functions; (e)-by order of the court, enter upon any establishment or premises, and to enter upon any land or premises for any purpose material to the fulfilment of the mandate of the Commission and in particular, for the purpose of obtaining information, inspecting any property or taking copies of any documents, and for safeguarding any such property or document; (f)-interview any person or group of persons; (g)-subject to adequate provision being made to meet his expenses for the purpose, call upon any person to meet with the Commission or its staff, or to attend a session or hearing of the Commission, and to compel the attendance of any person who fails to respond to a request of the Commission to appear and to answer questions relevant to the subject matter of the session or hearing...additionally to the powers conferred in Article 252 of the Constitution that: (1) Each commission and each holder of an independent office (a)-may conduct investigations on its own initiative or on a complaint made by a member of the public; (b)-has the powers necessary for conciliation, mediation and negotiation; (c)-shall recruit its own staff; and (d)-may perform any functions and exercise any powers prescribed by legislation, in addition to the functions and powers conferred by this Constitution (2.) A complaint to a commission or the holder of an independent office may be made by any person entitled to institute court proceedings under Article 22(1) and (2) on the Enforcement of Bill of Rights that (1)-Every person has the right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened. (2) In addition to a person acting in their own interest, court proceedings under clause (1) may be instituted by—(a)-a person acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name; (b)-a person acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons (c)-a person acting in the public interest; or (d)-an association acting in the interest of one or more of its members....as read together withSection 9(1)-(6) of the ATI Act (2016) onProcessing of application that:- (1) Subject to Section 10, a public officer shall make a decision on an application as soon as possible, but in any event, within twenty one days of receipt of the application; (2) Where the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, the information officer shall provide the information within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the application; (3) The information officer to whom a request is made under Subsection (2) may extend the period for response on a single occasion for a period of not more than fourteen days if—(a) the request is for a large amount of information or requires a search through a large amount of information and meeting the stipulated time would unreasonably interfere with the activities of the information holder; or (b) consultations are necessary so as to comply with the request and the consultations cannot be reasonably completed within the stipulated time; (4) As soon as the information access officer has made a decision as to whether to provide access to information, he or she shall immediately communicate the decision to the requester, indicating—(a) whether or not the public entity or private body holds the information sought; (b) whether the request for information is approved; (c) if the request is declined the reasons for making that decision, including the basis for deciding that the information sought is exempt, unless the reasons themselves would be exempt information; and (d) if the request is declined, a statement about how the requester may appeal to the Commission"; (5) A public officer referred to in Subsection (1) may seek the assistance of any other public officer as the first mentioned public officer considers necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties and such other public officer shall render the required assistance. (6) Where the applicant does not receive a response to an application within the period stated in Subsection (1), the application shall be deemed to have been rejected...as read together with Section 10(1)(2)(3) of the ATI Act (2016) on transfer of application that (1) An information access officer may, not later than five days from the date of receipt of an application, transfer the application or any relevant part of it, to another public entity, if the information requested is held by that other public entity; (2) Where an application is transferred under Subsection (1), an information access officer shall inform the applicant immediately but in any event not later than seven days from the date of receipt of the application, about such transfer;3) A public entity to which an application is referred by an information access officer under Subsection (1) shall make a decision on the application within twenty one days from the date that the application was first made... as read together with ATI Act Section 11(1)-(3):-Once a decision is made to provide information, the applicant will be informed in writing:(a)-That the application has been granted; (b)-That the information will be contained in an edited copy, where applicable; (c)-The details of any fees to be paid for access, together with the calculations made to arrive at the amount of the fee; (d)-The method of payment of any fees; (e)The proposed process of accessing the information once the payment (if any) is made; (f)-That an appeal may be made to the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) in respect of the fees to be paid or the proposed form of access...pursuant to Section 14(1)(a) of the ATI Act (2016) on Review of decisions by the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) that (1) Subject to Subsection (2), an applicant may apply in writing to the Commission requesting a review of any of the following decisions of a public entity or private body in relation to a request for access to information— (a) a decision refusing to grant access to the information applied for; (d) a decision to defer providing the access to information; (2) An application under Subsection (1) shall be made within thirty days, or such further period as the Commission may allow, from the day on which the decision is notified to the applicant; (3) The Commission may, on its own initiative or upon request by any person, review a decision by a public entity refusing to publish information that it is required to publish under this Act...(4) The procedure for submitting a request for a review by the Commission shall be the same as the procedure for lodging complaints with the Commission as stipulated underSection 22 of the ATI Act (2016) on inquiry into complaintsbelow...subjecT to Section 20 of the ATI Act (2016) on their Roles, that (1) The Commission is hereby granted the powers of oversight and enforcement of this Act; (2) In the performance of its functions under this Act, the Commission shall be guided by the national values and principles of the Constitution (3) The Commission shall designate one of the Commissioners as "Access to Information Commissioner" with specific responsibility of performing the functions assigned to the Commission under this Act.
Register
Complaint: The items marked in are compulsory
I. Contact Information
II. Complaint Details
(16.)-County where Incident took place: Nairobi
(17.)-Individual / Institution complained against: Mr. George Nyakundi the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission and the Advocates Complaints Commission
(18.)-Where Incident took place: Cooperative Bank House, Haile Selassie Avenue, 20th Floor, Nairobi
(19.)-Incident Date: 2023.10.09
(20.)-Is this an Access To Information Complaint?: Yes
(21.)-Have you previously lodged this complaint with the Ombudsman?: No
(22.)-Have you complained to the Public Institution Involved?: Yes
(23.)-if Yes, what is the outcome of your complaint?:The Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the The Advocates Complaints Commission, a Mr. George Nyakundi, rejected, refused and denied my application violating the stipulated timelines in Sec 2023 ati act after exhausting the 21-business day deadline on 9th October forcing me to file this appeal.
(24.)-Have you reported this matter to any other public institution / Public official? No
(25.)-Has this matter been subject of court proceedings? No
(26.)-Detailed summary of the Complaint: Indicate WHAT, WHERE, WHEN it happened, HOW and by WHOM
Dear Madam CEO CAJ / OJO,
I filed an Access To Information request to the Advocates Complaints Commission on the 9th of September 2023 ( https://erick-mango.blogspot.com/2023/09/application-request-for-access-to.html ) as showcased below seeking all records relating to myPetition-Appeal Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 herein as amendedsubmitted from Friday, November 25, 2022 through to Saturday, December 17, 2022...of I the Petitioner-Appellant Erick Otieno Mango VersusOwade & Co. Advocates plus Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates (aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates) as relates to my Advocates Complaints CommissionComplaint No. CC/PE/AUG/22/36lodged with the Commission from the 19th August 2022through tothe set submission deadline of 4th October 2022; as demonstrated in the links below concerning the status-quo of the same as regards quasi-judicial proceedings / determinations theAdvocates Complaints Commission and it's SecretarySenior State Counsel Leah M Mutua undertook or is undertaking; the outcome which was refusal, rejection and denial in continuous-violations-of-the-law to obstruct and defeat justice by exonerating....as is demonstrated from the genesis of the matter in the transcripts and links following your orders to lodge my complaint with the Advocates Complaints Commission for which we corresponded back-and-forth deliberating :-
I was first directed on this matter by the Commission on Administrative Justice Kisumu Ombudsman following consultations from CAJ / OJO Nairobi on Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 12:28 PM regarding a letter addressed to me way back on 28th April 2022delivered, signed and dated in the knowledge of the Chairperson: Hon. Florence Kajuju, MBS, Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Washington Sati and Commissioner: Mrs. Lucy Ndung'u, EBS.HSC of the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman as is illustrated both in their letter below titled { Re: Third Month Follow Up on 'Request for Closure Form c/o Ombudsman Nairobi' } and its COMMISSION ON ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE "Office of the Ombudsman" -PDF-attachment following prior correspondence regarding the complaint CAJ/KSM/PE/040/437/22-WMBUDSMAN I'd lodged on 7th April, 2022... feedback sent by Winnie Talam for Commission Secretary who having revised the same instructed me to lodge the same with the Advocates Complaints Commission.
I subsequently proceeded to re-lodge my complaints for which we corresponded back-and-forth with the Advocates Complaints Commission deliberating on the facts-and-matters of the law therein from Complaint No. CC/PE/AUG/22/36lodged with the Commission
from the 19th August 2022through tothe set submission deadline of 4th October 2022; whereby I was then instructed by the Advocates Complaints Commission and it's SecretarySenior State Counsel Leah M Mutua to lodge an appeal on a technicality of a tort vis-a-vis the felony of 'Breach of Contract'... for which I duly proceeded to present the same in Petition-Appeal Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 herein as amended filing submissions from Friday, November 25, 2022 through to Saturday, December 17, 2022.
Subject: Request for Closure Form c/o Ombudsman Nairobi
Dear Sir,
Kindly receive warmest compliments from the Commission on Administrative Justice.
Please accept our apologies as we have noted that your previous emails went to the spam folder, thus our inability to trace them and respond appropriately.
Nonetheless, please find attached a copy of the letter that was addressed to you on 28th April 2022.
It's the third month since May 23rd 2022 when I first relayed feedback from Ombudsman-Nairobi regarding my complaints of serial no. 349. Can I get some response on the status-quo? Regards,
I jus' spoke to one Jacob ( 0202270000 ) of Ombudsman Nairobi who referred me to your Kisumu branch to ask for s'thing called a 'Closure Form' regarding my complaints of Serial No. 349 ( https://wp.me/pb6oyO-65w ) and/or ( https://wp.me/pb6oyO-62m ). He said you can scan and email it to me. Regards,
--
Kisumu Branch,
Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman
2nd Floor, Central Square Building, Oginga Odinga Street P. O. Box 1967 - 40100 Kisumu, Kenya M: +254 748254529/ 731 248 906
THE COMMISSION ON ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE "Office of the Ombudsman"
OUR REF: CAJ/KSM/PE/040/437/22-WMBUDSMAN 28th April, 2022 Otieno Mango Erick
P.O Box 1184-40400
MIGORI Dear Sir, RE: YOUR COMPLAINT AGAINST OWADE ADVOCATES Kindly receive warmest compliments from The Commission on Administrative Justice (Office of The Ombudsman). We make reference to your complaint regarding the above captioned matter which you lodged on 7th April, 2022. Having reviewed the same, this is to advise you to lodge the same with the Advocates Complaints Commission whose mandate is to investigate the conduct of Advocates. In the circumstances, we shall proceed to close our file and assure you of our highest regards. Yours Sincerely, WINNIE TALLAM FOR: COMMISSION SECRETARY
CENTRAL SQUARE BUILDING 2nd Floor, Oginga Odinga Street
YOUR REF: TBA Date: 20/9/2022 OUR REF: CC/PE/AUG/22/36 (6833) ERICK MANGO OTIENO P.O BOX 184-40400 SUNA, MIGORI "Via Email;erickmango2006@yahoo.com" Dear Sir, RE: YOUR COMPLAINT AGAINST OWADE & CO. ADVOCATES AND MUDEYI ALBERT OKUMU, ADVOCATE (1)-We refer to the above matter and your email received on 19th September 2022. (2)-The mandate of the Advocates Complaints Commission has been explained to you in our previous letter. We are only mandated to pursue complaints against advocates for acts of professional misconduct only. In the event that your constitutional rights have been infringed in any way, you are at liberty to file a Constitutional Petition with the High Court. (3)-In your complaint, you stated that you paid legal fees to the advocate(s) but you have not furnished any evidence to that effect. We request that you avail proof of payment. This may be in form of cash receipts or provide us a certified Mpesa statement. (4)-We reiterate that your complaint as received does not contain ANY evidence to ascertain your allegations against the advocates. Kindly avail documentary evidence to substantiate your claims against the said advocates. (5)-Take note that the attachments received in your email to us ought to be rescanned to enable the Commission peruse and advice. The copies as scanned appear too small and thus illegible. (6)-Kindly avail proof of instructions to the said advocate(s) and the circumstances surrounding 'rejection' of the brief. Proof of instructions may be in form of an ADVOCATES COMPLAINTS COMMISSION COOPERATIVE BANK HOUSE, 20TH FLOOR, HAILE SELASSIE AVENUE
Instructions Note, Correspondences/communication between yourself and the advocate(s) concerning the brief. (7)-For the Commission to adequately assist you and pursue your complaint, it is imperative that you cooperate with us by availing the information sought. (8)-We draw your attention to section 53 of the Advocates Act Cap 16 Laws of Kenya, the law by which the Commission acts. We further wish to inform you that the Commission does not have the power (neither does any person) to impose a duty on any advocate to receive instructions and/or render any professional legal services more or less where neither proof of payment for the said services nor an otherwise written fee agreement has been availed. (9)-Let us have evidence within 14 days from the date hereof. Failure to which your complaint may be rejected for lack of evidence/merit. (10)-You may send an advance copy of your response toleah.mutua@ag.go.ke. Yours faithfully,
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 4:02 PMthe Advocates Complaints Commission and it's SecretarySenior State Counsel Leah M Mutua sent the following correspondence
Good afternoon,
Kindly find attached our response to your complaint a lodged with the Advocates Complaints Commission.
Yours Faithfully,
Leah M. Mutua
Senior State Counsel, Advocates Complaints Commission
Dear Sir, RE: YOUR COMPLAINT AGAINST OWADE & CO. ADVOCATES AND MUDEYI ALBERT OKUMU, ADVOCATE We write making reference to the above matter being your complaint lodged with the Commission on 19TH August 2022. Upon perusal of your complaint, we noted that your complaint was against two advocates as mentioned herein above for their failure to prosecute your accident claim on time and thus leading to frustration resulting from their breach of duty of care to you as the client. We did also peruse your submissions as received and wrote to you vide our letters dated 5/9/2022 and 20/9/2022 as well as our tele-conversation with you on 14/11/2022. In our letters we emphasized that you:- 1. Avail proof of payment of the legal fees to the advocate(s). 2. Documentary evidence to substantiate your claims against the said advocates. ADVOCATES COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
COOPERATIVE BANK HOUSE, 20TH FLOOR, HAILE SELASSIE AVENUE
3. Avail proof of advocate-client relationship between yourself and the advocates. 4. You are knowledgeable of our mandate as the Commission as per section 53 of the Advocates Act CAP 16. We herein issue our response as follows:-
The Mandate of the Advocates Complaints Commission
-The Advocates Complaints Commission is established under Section 53 of the Advocates Act to enquire into complaints against advocates, Law firms and their employees. After due enquiry, we are mandated to either: reject the complaint, promote reconciliation and/or encourage and facilitate an amicable settlement or, if a disciplinary offence that is serious or aggravated is disclosed, to file a complaint before the Disciplinary Tribunal. -The Act further explains in subsection 4 that it is within the mandate of the Commission...to receive and consider a complaint made by any person, regarding the conduct of any advocate.... if it appears to the Commission that there is no substance in the complaint it shall reject the same forthwith; if it appears to the Commission whether before or after investigation that there is substance in the complaint but that the matter complained of constitutes or appears to constitute a disciplinary offence it shall forthwith refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee; if it appears to the Commission that there is substance in the complaint but that it does not constitute a disciplinary offence it shall forthwith notify the person:.... if it appears to the Commission that there is substance in a complaint but that the circumstances of the case do not disclose a disciplinary offence with which the Disciplinary Committee can properly deal and that the Commission itself should not deal with the matter but that the proper remedy for the complainant is to refer the matter to the courts for appropriate redress the Commission shall forthwith so advise the complainant." -During our tele-conversation with the complainant on 14th November 2022, I informed you that all complaints received by the Commission must first pass through the sieve to ensure that they have 'merit' or as described above, 'substance'. Upon
receipt of any complaint lodged within the Commission, it is within the mandate of the commission to 'weigh' every complaint as threshold of what can be pursued as 'professional misconduct' against an advocate, law firm or its employees. -For the Commission to decide whether or not a complaint has 'merit' or 'substance' the same is weighed based on the 'evidence' adduced otherwise what would make a complaint worth of pursuit stand out from any other allegation made by anyone against another? The Commission in its implementation of its mandate relies entirely on evidence in determining whether or not a complaint falls within the constraints of what the Commission deals with, being, allegations against advocates for acts of professional misconduct.
-You have been informed and reminded of our mandate in our letters to you and the importance of documentary evidence. Complaints without evidence are merely allegations without proof. Proof of Payment -An advocate, as in any other profession, is entitled to legal fees for professional services rendered within the course of his professional duty. Section 46 of the Advocates Act explains more in Advocate's remuneration and further states that '... such agreement shall be valid and binding on the parties PROVIDED IT IS IN WRITING and signed by the client or his agent duly authorized in that behalf." -In the Help Form filed and signed by yourself on 18th August 2022, you indicated that you had paid the advocate legal fees but then went ahead to state that it was an *..abuse of the court process to ask for proof of payment of legal fees... Take note that 'He who alleges must prove".
-Kindly note that proof of payment in your case would act as evidence that you indeed instructed the advocate, paid a retainer fee for which the Commission would then have authority to inquire from the advocate(s) under which circumstances had he/they received the money paid by you. We wish to reiterate that 'merit' or 'substance' is sourced from evidence, which in this case, is missing.
Establishment of Advocate-Client Relationship -It is imperative that you establish an advocate client relationship while lodging a complaint against 'your advocate for acts of professional misconduct. In the event legal fees were not paid and/or a written fee agreement is lacking, one is able to establish the same by way of correspondences between yourself as the client and the advocate discussing matter to do with the brief. -You allegedly instructed advocates to render professional legal services on your behalf in exchange for legal fees but you have failed to establish existence of instructions/ advocate-client relationship between yourself and the advocate (s). Tort of professional Negligence and Liability -In your submissions, you further indicated that, 'My complaint's grounded in the tort of professional negligence and liability... 'noting to cite the decision of the court in 'Blyth vs Birmingham, read together with the breach of duty of care ...since their professional misconducts failed to meet the statutory requirement-thresholds set by law... We wish to reiterate as herein above that the mandate of the Commission as lying within section 53 of the Advocates Act is to deal with complaints against advocates, law firms or their employees for acts of professional misconduct, not tort. Further, your allegation has not be backed by any evidence authorizing us to inquire deeper into the complaint, thus lacking 'substance".
CONCLUSION -It is noteworthy that you have failed, neglected and refused to cooperate with the Commission for 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. The Advocates Complaints Commission is governed not only by the Advocates Act but also the Constitution of Kenya as read together with other laws allowing the Commission to act within the confines of the Law governing it. The Commission is required to accept complaints from the public however, the complaints are scrutinized to ensure that they fall within the limits of the law, thereby giving them 'substance' or 'merit' or lack thereof. It is also within the mandate of the Commission pursuant to Section 53(4)(a) of the Act to reject a complaint lacking in merit. This complaint as is lacks merit which results from the lack of evidence and is therefore rejected. 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 or personally prosecute your complaint before the Disciplinary Committee as under Section 60 (1) of the Advocates Act or seek redress from the courts. 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. Take note that we shall proceed to close our file. Yours faithfully,
To The CEO Advocates Complaints CommissionMr. George Nyakundi
Dear Sir,
I'm an independent professional online-jobs virtual administrative-assistant and registered business entrepreneur, paralegal, French tour-guide / interpreter / translator, analytical-theoretical-researcher, public lecturer and a career / private medical-geneticist contractor / counselor; though at the moment I am a penniless indigent living below the poverty line thanks to the GoK political-legal-economic abuse impositions including discrimination in the Ruto-UDA-GoK alleged all-inclusive 'bottom-up' Manifesto Hustler Fund initiative designed to improve financial-access to those at the bottom of poverty; and 'selective-justice' delay-tactics in determining my broad lawsuit's hundreds-of-millions in petition-damages and retributions adding to backlog statistics with variant internal-dispute-mechanism bodies of different govt. agencies / departments. The application has been submitted in a hurry due to wanting resources amid GoK imposed penniless pauperism but it contains the basic requisite details.
I file this application-request pursuant to the Access To Information Act No. 31 of 2016 that gives effect to the provisions of Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya espousing every citizen's right to access information held by the State or another person where the information is required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom. The ATI ACT is citizen driven, meaning citizens must know and exercise their right for the law to be effective and yield outcomes in transparency and the fight against corruption. The Act sets out the procedure and timelines for requesting information from both private and public entities whereby the Chief Executive Officer of entities acts as the Information Access Officer but may delegate the performance of his or her duty to another officer in that entity. In this case the CEO / Information Access Officer of theAdvocates Complaints Commission is a Mr. George Nyakundi appointed since 1st July, 2017.( https://acc.go.ke/commissioners/ )
I am seeking all records relating to myPetition-Appeal Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 herein as amended
submitted from Friday, November 25, 2022 through to Saturday, December 17, 2022...of I the Petitioner-Appellant Erick Otieno Mango VersusOwade & Co. Advocates plus Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates (aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates) as relates to my Advocates Complaints CommissionComplaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36lodged with the Commission from the 19th August 2022through tothe set submission deadline of 4th October 2022; as demonstrated in the links below:-
concerning the status-quo of the same as regards quasi-judicial proceedings / determinations theAdvocates Complaints Commission and it's SecretarySenior State Counsel Leah M Mutua undertook or is undertaking.
My request additionally encompasses email messages and other forms of correspondence records including phone calls reflecting any contact the Advocates Complaints Commission and it's SecretarySenior State Counsel Leah M Mutua atleah.mutua@ag.go.ke held or has had with the Prosecution Counsel Peninnah Ngondi Wawira in the ODPP at penwawira@gmail.com for whom I'd to amend the prima facieComplaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 herein( https://erick-mango.blogspot.com/2022/12/final-appeal-submission-subject-to.html ) to subpoena her to produce the documentary evidences you needed on the background of the letter I sent heron Thursday, Nov 17th 2022 at 4:10PM entitled:-(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)-of links( https://erick-mango.blogspot.com/2022/11/prosecution-counsel-peninnah-ngondi.html) or ( https://startrextraterrestrials.wordpress.com/2022/11/17/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/ ) before you (the ACC & its Secretary) rushed to arbitrarily-decide to close the file on the very following day Friday November 18th 2022 seeing that the water-tight evidence had arrived...in behind-the-scenes continuous-violations-of-the-law corruption and abetting-of-crime to exonerate the thief and ICC-Indicted mass-murderer (Terrorist) Executive Ruto's Amaco-Insurancethe defendant from liability and prosecution since erasion of such crucial, integral incriminating evidence is purposefully meant to lay grounds to create "Reasonable Doubt"for Amaco-Insurance so as to justify the potential to "Dismiss Motions and/or Achieve Mistrials"when the Kihara accident Amaco-Insurance case is court-processed for determinations.
Subsequently, I duly received correspondence from the ODPP who'd been investigating the complaints against Migori Police Station OCS's criminal conducts including of destroying an original Accident-P3 documentary evidence in apparent conspiracy with Owade Advocates and Commissioners for Oaths who'd intentionally alleged 'losing' a crucial component of the Kihara Construction Accident case-file particulars including the X-Ray in both "Spoliation & Tampering of Evidence" geared to exonerate
the thief and ICC-Indicted mass-murderer (Terrorist) Executive Ruto's Amaco-Insurancethe defendant even as it underscores Owade Advocates criminal acts & misconduct since its meant to lay grounds to create "Reasonable Doubt" for Kihara Construction so as to justify the potential to "Dismiss Motions and/or Achieve Mistrials" when their accident case is court-processed for determinations. Hence, the OCS's obvious "Obstruction / Perversion of Justice"is associated in addition to the above deduced more serious underlying crime involving the corrupt lawyers, cops, Asst. Chief Onyango & co. in a wide-spread conspiracy...to liaise with the NPS's IAU where the case had been transferred entitled:-(Correspondence From ODPP To Liaise With The IAU of The NPS-KPS On REF: ODPP/HQ/CAM/1/001 Regarding A 2020 "Complaint against OCS Migori Police Station) of links:-
The subject of this request is of widespread and exceptional social-media public interest since the information sought involves questions about the government's integrity as relates to State and Public Officers Article 260 which affects public trust, confidence and candor subject to Article 75(1)(a)(b)(c) as read together with Article 75(2) Article s 76, 77, 78(2)(a)(b)(3). The release of these records will significantly contribute to my and the public's understanding of how Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua who is also the Secretary of the Advocates Complaints Commission undertook and/or is undertaking the processing and/or prosecution of my Petition-Appeal Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 herein as amendedwith regards to the conduct-and-operations of the Advocates Complaints Commission as relates to the statutory dictates of their mandates pursuant to Section 31(b) of CAP 2 Interpretation and General Provisions Act. that provides that 'Judicial bodies have the obligation to interpret the laws in a purposive manner so as to illuminate the spirit of the laws,' as read together with...
Due to ongoing concerns above over the influence of the Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua's (who is also the Secretary of theAdvocates Complaints Commission), in light of her showcased wanting legal-competency, transparency, leadership besides the discriminative, corrupt interpretations-of-the-law or lack-of thereof as demonstrated during our deliberations on a day-to-day basis in the preliminary lodging of my Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36, as well her input on all decisions / determinations coming out of the Advocates Complaints Commission...there is an urgency to inform me Erick Otieno Mango the Petitioner-Appellant on behalf of the public about corrupt government agencies including State-and-Public Officers behind-the-scenes criminal activities as regards what happened or is happening to my Petition-Appeal Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 herein as amended, and thus a compelling need to pressingly disclose, bearing in mind that the consequences of delaying release of the requested information which is integral to my threatened existence would therefore compromise significant recognized interests relating to my fundamental rights and freedoms as espoused by Article 21 of the Kenyan Constitution which says on 'Implementation of rights and fundamental freedoms that':- (1) It is a fundamental duty of the State and every State organ to observe, respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights; as read with -Article 20 of the Constitution of Kenya that says:- (1)The Bill of Rights applies to all law and binds all State organs and all persons. (2) Every person shall enjoy the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights to the greatest extent consistent with the nature of the right or fundamental freedom; as read with-Article 31C Constitution of Kenya that says:- Every person has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have— (a) their person, home or property searched; (b) their possessions seized; (c) information relating to their family or private affairs unnecessarily required or revealed; or (d) the privacy of their communications infringed; and as read with-Article 4a of the Kenya Constitution?(4) The State shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground, including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth; and as read with-Article 32 of the Kenyan Constitution that says:-(1) Every person has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion; and as read with-Article 50 Constitution of Kenya that says :- (1) Every person has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or, if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body; and as read with-Article 29F of the Constitution of Kenya on Freedom and security of the person that says nobody shall be (f) be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading manner; and as read with-Article 28 of the Constitution of Kenya on 'Human dignity' that says:- Every person has inherent dignity and the right to have that dignity respected and protected; and as read with-Article 22 of the Constitution of Kenya that says:- (1)Every person has the right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened;
I require the information especially on the payment of my 10m+ accident-damages plus any other awarded reliefs and to know of the penalties and sentencing of the convicted lawyers and driver of the KAS 535K for retributions to enforce my threatened constitutional fundamental rights and freedoms as demonstrated by my broad lawsuit of my existence hanging-on-a-string, e.g. my registered biz (Solar System Media) is stalled cause of the Hustler Fund Biashara Loan discrimination by the thief and ICC-Indicted mass-murderer (Terrorist) Executive Ruto's vested interests since
Amaco-Insurancethe defendant is his company; my longtime plans to pursue further studies for a Post Graduate Diploma and a Masters in Medical-Genetics and Genomics in South Africa or The UK hangs-in-the-balance as well; same as getting my life back with regards to dating-and-marriage at 45yrs of imposed penniless pauperism; and as concerns self-determination for which my life is still in abuse as relates to gaslighting, delayed-denied justice, mandatory-systems-of-commitment, rape-of-conscience. Broad lawsuit Links:
To better understand what if any actions the Advocates Complaints Commission c/o OAG and/or the Appellate Advocates Complaints Commission took / have taken to ensure due process including fair hearing and administrative action relating to my Petition-Appeal Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 herein as amended; and whether any such actions were influenced by the the thief and ICC-Indicted mass-murderer (Terrorist) Executive Ruto's Amaco-Insurance defendant 's partisan interests ( including illegal, unlawful executive orders ) to embezzle-and-defraud me of the long-standing 10m+ damages, please furnish all the following required information / responsive documents in electronic-format by email, regarding what "prayers, orders, restitutions, remedies, reliefs and/or redressess sought have been granted" both in the original Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 lodged with the Commission from the 19th August 2022through tothe set submission deadline of 4th October 2022; as well as thereafter in the Petition-Appeal Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 herein as amendedsubmitted on Saturday December 17 2022...
WHICH OF ANY OF EACH INSTANCE OF THESE TWENTY-SEVEN 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 for the Petition-Appeal Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 herein as amended Posted OnSaturday, December 17, 2022 Entitled:" Final Appeal Submission Subject To Deadline Extension On The Decision of The Advocates Complaints Commission By The Secretary at Cooperative Building, 20th Floor, Nairobi, Delivered-and-Issued On Friday 18th November, 2022 At 4:02 PM In COMPLAINT-CC/PE/AUG/22/36:
(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/22/36was illegal, null and void ab initio as they violated-and-infringed Article 47 on fair administrative action of the Constitution as read together withArticle 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 CommissionComplaint 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 toCLOSE-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 andMudeyi 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 THERespondent Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary'sDECISIONto 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 andMudeyi 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 THERespondent 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 andMudeyi 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 determination 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 Secretarywere 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 COMMISSIONSUBOENAEDPPENNINAH NGONDI WAWIRA, PROSECUTION COUNSEL in the ODPP and thus COMPELLED HER TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES DETAILING THESIGNATURES, 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 THEAdvocates 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 Commissionto to allow the appeal as prayed? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(15.):-HAS A DECLARATION BEEN MADE THAT THEAdvocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary's lame-excuse decision to knowingly, deliberately, intentionally and erroneously conduct a tele-conversation / hearing / direct-examinationlasting 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-lawand unreliable since I was even abruptlycut-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 THEAdvocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary proceeding as they did on Monday, November 14, 2022, in conducting a tele-conversation / hearing / direct-examinationlasting 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 afull proper hearingpursuant to Section 60A of the Advocates Act at the Commission offices at Cooperative Building, 20th Floor, Nairobi,as earlier envisaged in their letter onMonday, October 31, 2022 at 03:30:53 PM GMT+3?IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(18.):-HAS A DECLARATION BEEN MADE THAT THEAdvocates 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 Secretarydidn't fully comply with the constitutional-and-legal procedural requirements defining the Hearing-of-Complaints whereby theyflouted 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 THE2 CID officers constituting the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretarydidn'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-correspondencesI 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 THE2 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 toforensic-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 recordsI wrote to civil-society-groups and recorded in my blog-sitesas given in the provided links including:
(22):-HAS AN ORDER BEEN MADE THAT THE unscrupulous lawyers Owade & Co. Advocates
andMudeyi 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 theAdvocates 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 TOArticle 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 ofEWA 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 AppellateAdvocates-Complaints Commissiondeclare 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 theComplaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 Posted OnThursday October 6, 2022Entitled:-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-individuallywere 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 Codeon 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-offendersOwade & 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-offendersOwade & 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-offendersOwade & 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 128as 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 63on 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 21CoK-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 391Penal 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 47as read together withThe 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 withCap 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 ofmitigation-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 theformer 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, theAttorney GeneralJustin Muturiatcommunications@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 theProsecution 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:-
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 facieComplaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 hereinto subpoena her to produce the documentary evidences you needed) on the background of the letter I'd sent heron 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 andanchor 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 justiceand 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/22/36and 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-shady 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 PROCEEDINGSof 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 159CoK-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 withinforty 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 informationas well as receiving and inquiring into complaints made under the Act; while their core values include responsiveness, independence, fairness and integrity.
I also reservethe right to appeal your decision to deny a waiver of fees sinceUnder 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.
-I agitate the independent Commission on Administrative Justiceaka Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman to investigate the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission, a Mr. George Nyakundi, a public-and-state official,plus the public-institution itself the Advocates Complaints Commission; and review, determine,pursuant toSection 24(1)-(5) of the ATI Act (2016)on powers relating to investigation that...
(1) The Commission may, for the purpose of conducting any investigation pertaining to an inquiry, utilize the services of any public officer or investigation agency of the Government and where a public officer is so utilized under this subsection, the Commission shall pay such expenses as may be incurred by the public officer or agency for the service rendered.
(2) For the purpose of investigating any matter pertaining to an inquiry, a public servant or agency whose services are utilized under Subsection (1) may, subject to the direction and control of the Commission—
(a) summon and enforce the attendance of any person for examination;
(b) require the discovery and production of any information;
(c) subject to the provisions of this Act, requisition any public records or copy thereof from any public officer; and
(d) take a statement under oath in relation to any investigation it is undertaking.
(3) The provisions of Section 23 shall apply in relation to any statement made by a person before any public officer or agency whose services are utilized under Subsection (1) as they apply in relation to any statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the Commission.
(4) The public officer or agency whose services are utilized under Subsection (1) shall investigate into any matter pertaining to the inquiry and submit a report thereon to the Commission on that behalf.
(5) The Commission shall satisfy itself on the correctness of the facts stated and the conclusion, if any, arrived at in the report submitted to it under Subsection (4) and for that purpose, the Commission may make such inquiry, including the examination of any person who conducts or assists in the investigation, as it considers necessary... as read together with Section 23(1)(2) of the ATI Act (2016) on powers of the Commission that:-
(1) In the performance of its functions under this Act, the Commission shall have the power to:- (a) issue summonses or other orders requiring the attendance of any person before the Commission and the production of any document or record relevant to any investigation by the Commission;
(b) question any person in respect of any subject matter under investigation before the Commission; and
(c) require any person to disclose any information within such person's knowledge relevant to any investigation by the Commission.
(2) The Commission may, if satisfied that there has been an infringement of the provisions of this Act, order— (a) the release of any information withheld unlawfully;
(b) a recommendation for the payment of compensation; or
(c) any other lawful remedy or redress...
...as read together withSection 21(1)(2)(3) of the ATI Act (2016)on(1) The functions of the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) to:-
(a) investigate, on its initiative or upon complaint made by any person or group of persons, violation of the provisions of this Act;
(b) request for and receive reports from public entities with respect to the implementation of this Act and of the Act relating to data protection and to assess and act on those reports with a view to assessing and evaluating the use and disclosure of information and the protection of personal data;
(c) develop and facilitate public education awareness and develop programs on right to access to information and right to protection of personal data;
(d) work with public entities to promote the right to access to information and work with other regulatory bodies on promotion and compliance with data protection measures in terms of legislation;
(e) monitor state compliance with international treaty obligations relating to freedom of and right of access to information and protection of personal data;
(f) hear and determine complaints and review decisions arising from violations of the right to access to information;
(g) promote protection of data as provided for under this Act or the Constitution; and
(h) perform such other functions as the Commission may consider necessary for the promotion of access to information and promotion of data protection.
(2) The Commission shall have all the powers as are provided for under this Act, its constitutive Act and the Constitution as are necessary for the performance of its functions under this Act.
(3) The decisions of the Commission shall be binding on the national and county governments... ...by effectuating its mandate established by the Commission on Administrative Justice CAJ Act 2011 pursuant to Article 59 (4) of the Constitution of Kenyaas read together withArticle 253(b) CoK-2010 regarding incorporated commissions and independent offices' capacity of suing and being sued in their corporate names; as read together withthe CAJ Act 2011 Section 7(a)-(d) on its guiding principles to act in accordance with the values and principles set out in the Constitution and the laws of Kenya, to observe and respect:- (a) the diversity of the people of Kenya; (b) impartiality and gender equity; (c) all treaties and conventions which have been ratified by Kenya and in particular the fact that human rights are indivisible, interdependent, interrelated and of equal importance for the dignity of all human beings; and (d) the rules of natural justice; as read together with the CAJ Act 2011 Section 8(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(g)(h)(j)(k)(l)(m) onits functions including:- (a) investigate any conduct in state affairs, or any act or omission in public administration by any State organ, State or public officer in National and County Governments that is alleged or suspected to be prejudicial or improper or is likely to result in any impropriety or prejudice; (b) investigate complaints of abuse of power, unfair treatment, manifest injustice or unlawful, oppressive, unfair or unresponsive official conduct within the public sector; (c) report to the National Assembly bi-annually on the complaints investigated under paragraphs (a) and (b), and the remedial action taken thereon; (d) inquire into allegations of maladministration, delay, administrative injustice, discourtesy, incompetence, misbehavior, inefficiency or ineptitude within the public service; (e) facilitate the setting up of, and build complaint handling capacity in, the sectors of public service, public offices and state organs; (g) recommend compensation or other appropriate remedies against persons or bodies to which this Act applies; (h) provide advisory opinions or proposals on improvement of public administration, including review of legislation, codes of conduct, processes and procedures; (j) promote public awareness of policies and administrative procedures on matters relating to administrative justice; (k) take appropriate steps in conjunction with other State organs and Commissions responsible for the protection and promotion of human rights to facilitate promotion and protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual in public administration; (l) work with the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and complementarity in their activities and to establish mechanisms for referrals and collaboration; and (m) perform such other functions as may be prescribed by the Constitution and any other written law... as read together with the CAJ Act 2011 Section 26on itsGeneral powers to: (a)-issue summons as it deems necessary for the fulfilment of its mandate; (b)-require that statements be given under oath or affirmation and to administer such oath or affirmation; (c)-adjudicate on matters relating to administrative justice; (d)-obtain, by any lawful means, any information it considers relevant, including requisition of reports, records, documents and any information from any person, including governmental authorities, and to compel the production of such information for the proper discharge of its functions; (e)-by order of the court, enter upon any establishment or premises, and to enter upon any land or premises for any purpose material to the fulfilment of the mandate of the Commission and in particular, for the purpose of obtaining information, inspecting any property or taking copies of any documents, and for safeguarding any such property or document; (f)-interview any person or group of persons; (g)-subject to adequate provision being made to meet his expenses for the purpose, call upon any person to meet with the Commission or its staff, or to attend a session or hearing of the Commission, and to compel the attendance of any person who fails to respond to a request of the Commission to appear and to answer questions relevant to the subject matter of the session or hearing...additionally to the powers conferred in Article 252 of the Constitution that: (1) Each commission and each holder of an independent office (a)-may conduct investigations on its own initiative or on a complaint made by a member of the public; (b)-has the powers necessary for conciliation, mediation and negotiation; (c)-shall recruit its own staff; and (d)-may perform any functions and exercise any powers prescribed by legislation, in addition to the functions and powers conferred by this Constitution (2.) A complaint to a commission or the holder of an independent office may be made by any person entitled to institute court proceedings under Article 22(1) and (2) on the Enforcement of Bill of Rights that (1)-Every person has the right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened. (2) In addition to a person acting in their own interest, court proceedings under clause (1) may be instituted by—(a)-a person acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name; (b)-a person acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons (c)-a person acting in the public interest; or (d)-an association acting in the interest of one or more of its members....as read together withSection 9(1)-(6) of the ATI Act (2016) onProcessing of application that:- (1) Subject to Section 10, a public officer shall make a decision on an application as soon as possible, but in any event, within twenty one days of receipt of the application; (2) Where the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, the information officer shall provide the information within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the application; (3) The information officer to whom a request is made under Subsection (2) may extend the period for response on a single occasion for a period of not more than fourteen days if—(a) the request is for a large amount of information or requires a search through a large amount of information and meeting the stipulated time would unreasonably interfere with the activities of the information holder; or (b) consultations are necessary so as to comply with the request and the consultations cannot be reasonably completed within the stipulated time; (4) As soon as the information access officer has made a decision as to whether to provide access to information, he or she shall immediately communicate the decision to the requester, indicating—(a) whether or not the public entity or private body holds the information sought; (b) whether the request for information is approved; (c) if the request is declined the reasons for making that decision, including the basis for deciding that the information sought is exempt, unless the reasons themselves would be exempt information; and (d) if the request is declined, a statement about how the requester may appeal to the Commission"; (5) A public officer referred to in Subsection (1) may seek the assistance of any other public officer as the first mentioned public officer considers necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties and such other public officer shall render the required assistance. (6) Where the applicant does not receive a response to an application within the period stated in Subsection (1), the application shall be deemed to have been rejected...as read together with Section 10(1)(2)(3) of the ATI Act (2016) on transfer of application that (1) An information access officer may, not later than five days from the date of receipt of an application, transfer the application or any relevant part of it, to another public entity, if the information requested is held by that other public entity; (2) Where an application is transferred under Subsection (1), an information access officer shall inform the applicant immediately but in any event not later than seven days from the date of receipt of the application, about such transfer;3) A public entity to which an application is referred by an information access officer under Subsection (1) shall make a decision on the application within twenty one days from the date that the application was first made... as read together with ATI Act Section 11(1)-(3):-Once a decision is made to provide information, the applicant will be informed in writing:(a)-That the application has been granted; (b)-That the information will be contained in an edited copy, where applicable; (c)-The details of any fees to be paid for access, together with the calculations made to arrive at the amount of the fee; (d)-The method of payment of any fees; (e)The proposed process of accessing the information once the payment (if any) is made; (f)-That an appeal may be made to the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) in respect of the fees to be paid or the proposed form of access...pursuant to Section 14(1)(a) of the ATI Act (2016) on Review of decisions by the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) that (1) Subject to Subsection (2), an applicant may apply in writing to the Commission requesting a review of any of the following decisions of a public entity or private body in relation to a request for access to information— (a) a decision refusing to grant access to the information applied for; (d) a decision to defer providing the access to information; (2) An application under Subsection (1) shall be made within thirty days, or such further period as the Commission may allow, from the day on which the decision is notified to the applicant; (3) The Commission may, on its own initiative or upon request by any person, review a decision by a public entity refusing to publish information that it is required to publish under this Act...(4) The procedure for submitting a request for a review by the Commission shall be the same as the procedure for lodging complaints with the Commission as stipulated underSection 22 of the ATI Act (2016) on inquiry into complaintsbelow...subjecT to Section 20 of the ATI Act (2016) on their Roles, that (1) The Commission is hereby granted the powers of oversight and enforcement of this Act; (2) In the performance of its functions under this Act, the Commission shall be guided by the national values and principles of the Constitution (3) The Commission shall designate one of the Commissioners as "Access to Information Commissioner" with specific responsibility of performing the functions assigned to the Commission under this Act.
SUBMISSIONS
-The Commission Joins in Commemorating International Day for Universal Access to Information. The United Nations General Assembly, having recognized the significance of access to information, proclaimed 28 September in its 74th General Assembly as the International Day for Universal Access to Information (IDUAI) in October 2019. The day had been proclaimed by the UNESCO General Conference in 2015, following the adoption of the 38 C/Resolution 57 declaring 28 September of every year as International Day for Universal Access to Information (IDUAI). In an event hosted by the Media Council of Kenya to commemorate IDUAI in Kirinyaga County, the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Information, Communication and the Digital Economy, Mr. Eliud Owalo who was the Chief Guest, said that the government will continue pursuing the noble agenda of digitizing government services so that the public can access any information that is domiciled within any sector of government and that no Kenyan should fail to access information because they cannot afford the cost of data. He also reiterated the government's commitment to allowing the media to enjoy the fundamental freedoms as bestowed in the Constitution 2010.
-The Commission on Administrative Justice is a constitutional commission established under Article 59 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya and its powers emanate from the Article 59(2) (h), (i) and (j) of the Constitution; it is a constitutional commission established following the restructuring of the Kenya National Human Rights and Equality Commission pursuant to Article 59(4) of the Constitution. That pursuant to Article 59(5) of the Constitutionas read together withSection 4 of the CAJA, the Respondent has the status and powers of a commission within the meaning of Chapter 15 of the Constitution of Kenya; Further, that the Respondent has been given a wide mandate under Articles 59(2)(h)–(k), 249 and 252 of the Constitutionas read withsections 8, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the CAJA.Such mandate amongst other things includes: to investigate any conduct in state affairs or any act or omission in public administration in any sphere of government, and complaints of abuse of power, unfair treatment, manifest injustice or unlawful, oppressive, unfair or unresponsive official conduct and further to deal with maladministration through conciliation, mediation and negotiation where appropriate. -in the conduct of its functions, Article 252 of the Constitution and sections 8, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the CAJA grants theCommission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) powers to conduct investigations on its own initiative or on a complaint made by a member of the public, to issue summons as it deems necessary for the fulfilment of its mandate and require that statements be given under oath, to adjudicate on matters relating to administrative justice, obtain any information it considers relevant from any person or governmental authorities including requisition of reports, records and documents and to compel the production of such information, to interview any persons, and to recommend compensation or other appropriate remedies against persons or bodies to which the CAJA applies; pursuant to Article 252(2) of the Constitution, a complaint may be made to it by any person entitled to institute court proceedings under Article 22(1) and (2) of the Constitution. Further, that under Section 31 of the CAJA, the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) may investigate an administrative action despite a provision in any written law to the effect that the action taken is final or cannot be appealed, challenged, reviewed, questioned or called in question; after undertaking its investigations, it is required under Section 42 of the CAJA to prepare a report for the state organ, public office or organization to which the investigation relates, and the report shall include the findings of the investigation, the action it considers should be taken, reasons for the decision and the recommendations deemed appropriate; Further, that upon an inquiry into a complaint, the Respondent may undertake such other action as it may deem fit against a concerned person or persons where the inquiry discloses a criminal offence as provided for under Section 41 of CAJA. That under Article 59 (2)(j) of the Constitution and Section 8(g) of the CAJA, the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) is empowered to report on complaints investigated under paragraphs (h) and (i) and take remedial action; it has a constitutional and statutory mandate under Articles 59(2)(h), (i) and (j) and 252 of the Constitution and Section 8 of the CAJA; to investigate any act or omission in any sphere of government suspected to be prejudicial, improper or to constitute abuse of power, and to take appropriate remedial action; its investigations focus solely on administrative law through investigation on maladministration (abuse of power, impropriety or prejudice) pursuant to its distinct mandate in the Constitution; the Advocates Complaints Commission is a statutory body corporate operating under the regulatory framework of the National Social Security Act, 2013, the State Corporations Act, Cap 446 and the Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003 and is therefore a public office which falls within the ambit of Section 29(1) of the CAJA.
-THAT the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission and the public-institution itself, the Advocates Complaints Commission 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 ;
-THAT the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission and the public-institution itself, the Advocates Complaints Commission 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 and that's the reason why they'd no data to provide me with in my ATI Application;
-THAT the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission and the public-institution itself, the Advocates Complaints Commission didn't adhere to the strict timeline provisions of the ATI Act for processing information requests nor bother to give any reasons must be given for any refusal to grant access to the information.;
-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 Ruto has vested interests with regards to owning of the defendant Amaco Insurance Company;
-Charge the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission and the public-institution itself, the Advocates Complaints Commission for violating Section 28(3)(b)(c) of the ATI Act (2016)on an information access officer who:- (b) refuses to accept a request for information; (c) fails to respond to a request for information within the prescribed time; commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand shillings, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both...as read together with Section 28(4)(b) of the ATI Act (2016) on any person who (b) fails to respond to a request for information required for the exercise or protection of a right in accordance with the requirements of this Act commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand shillings, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both...as read together with Section 18(1)(2)(3) of the ATI Act (2016)on the offences of alteration, defacement, blocking, erasure, etc (1) Where an application to access information has been made to a public entity under Section 8 and the applicant would have been entitled, subject to payment of any fee, to provision of any information in accordance with that ection, any person to whom this section applies commits an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public entity, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that entity of all, or any part, of the information provision of which the applicant would have been entitled; (2) Subsection (1) applies to the public entity and to any person who, is employed by, is an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the public entity;(3) A person convicted of an offence under Subsection (1) shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both...as read together with Section 28(5) of the ATI Act (2016)any person who is convicted of an offence under Section 18(3) after a request has been made for disclosure of the information in question, with the intention of preventing the disclosure of that information in response to that request is liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both...as read together with Section 28(7) of the ATI Act (2016) on any relevant private body that is convicted, or any officer of which is convicted of an offence under this Act, or which, although not convicted is in serious breach of this Act may, after a fair hearing, be debarred from entering into any future contract with government under the laws relating to matters of procurement and disposal...as read together with Section 28(8)(a)(b)(c) of the ATI Act (2016)on persons who (a) fails to attend before the Commission in accordance with any summons or order issued under Subsection 23(1)(a); (b) knowingly gives any false or misleading statement of information to the Commission; or (c) causes an obstruction or disturbance in the course of any proceedings before the Commission, commits an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding three hundred thousand shillings, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both;
-I also pray the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) in considering this case to have in mind the advice of the Supreme Court in the Advisory Opinion in Speaker of the Senate & another v Hon. Attorney General & others [2013] Eklr, that lawful public agency conduct under the Constitution requires every state organ to grapple, in good faith, with assigned obligations, and with a clear commitment to inter agency harmony and cooperation and that no state agency, especially where it is represented by one person, should overlook the historical trajectory of the Constitution which is clearly marked by transition from narrow platforms of idiosyncrasy or sheer might to a scheme of progressive, accountable institutional interplays;
-I pray the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) to act in accordance with the observation of the Supreme Court in the matter of the Principle of Gender Representation in the National Assembly and the Senate [2012] eKLR, and as the custodian of the integrity of the Constitutioninterpret it holistically, taking into account its declared principles, and to ensure that other organs bearing the primary responsibility for effecting operations that crystallize enforceable rights are enabled to discharge their obligations as a basis of sustaining the design and purpose of the Constitution since this matter is of great significance to the public by virtue of the fact that the circumstances revolving around it touches on its core constitutional mandate, and therefore the determination in this matter will have a great impact on the course and practice of administrative law on ombudsmanship in Kenya as founded in both the Constitution and the CAJA; besides its great public importance as it involves the integrity of the Constitution and interplay between state organs / agencies in this case the Advocates Complaints Commission herein and commitment to inter agency harmony or co-operation.
-Determination / findings be entered in my favor against the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission and the public-institution itself, the Advocates Complaints Commission as follows:
(a) A declaration be issued that the actions of the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission and the public-institution itself, the Advocates Complaints Commission in delaying / refusing my ATI ACT request violated my constitutional rights under Articles 35(1) and 4791)(2)(3) of the Constitution;
(b) I be awarded KShs.500,000/- as general damages for the violation of my rights by the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission and the public-institution itself, the Advocates Complaints Commission; and
(c) I be awarded costs of the proceedings against the respondents.
-Judgment and maximum sentences and fines for respondent convicts.
-Any further reliefs, orders or directions that the ACC-Secretariat / Disciplinary Tribunal may deem fit to grant ;
-I assert that I'm entitled to the reliefs sought in the petition with reference to the decision in Erickson Kenya Limited v Attorney General & 3 others [2014] ekLR as affirming the principle that a court of law, after finding in favor a party under Article 23 of the Constitution, has a duty to frame appropriate reliefs to vindicate the rights....-how I suffer on account of violation of Articles 2, 10, 19, 20, 25, 28, 43(1)(f) and 232 of the Constitution....-it is evident that my right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution was violated....besides the mistreatment meted upon me the indigent-Petitioner by the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission Mr. George Nyakundi, the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary jointly and severally with the acquiescence of the ACC in abetting-of-crime should attract monetary compensation...
-I pray that the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) pursuant to the decision in Frankline Kithinji Muriithi v Loyford Riungu Muriithi & 4 others [2014] eKLR cited as defining inhuman treatment to include physical or mental cruelty so severe that it endangers life or health"recommend compensation or other appropriate remedies against persons or bodies" to which the Act applies as read together with the empowerment by Section 8(g) of the Commission on Administrative Justice Act, 2011 since the actions, omissions and conducts ofthe Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission Mr. George Nyakundi, the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary jointly and severally violated my fundamental rights and freedoms including
gaslighting, delayed-denied justice, mandatory-systems-of-commitment, rape-of-conscienceas demonstrated by my broad lawsuit of links concerning my existence hanging-on-a-string, e.g. my registered biz (Solar System Media) is stalled cause of the Hustler Fund Biashara Loan discrimination by the thief and ICC-Indicted mass-murderer (Terrorist) Executive Ruto's vested interests since Amaco-Insurancethe defendant is his company; my longtime plans to pursue further studies for a Post Graduate Diploma and a Masters in Medical-Genetics and Genomics in South Africa or The UK hangs-in-the-balance as well; same as getting my life back with regards to dating-and-marriage at 45yrs of imposed penniless pauperism; and as concerns self-determination for which my life is still in abuse as relates to gaslighting, delayed-denied justice, mandatory-systems-of-commitment, rape-of-conscience. Broad lawsuit Links:
-Charge the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission Mr. George Nyakundi, the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary jointly and severally 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;
-A DECLARATION that the conduct of the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission and the public-institution itself, the Advocates Complaints Commission discriminating me contravened; inter alia, Articles 25, 28, 43(1)(f), 47 & 48 of the Bill of Rights as enshrined in Chapter 4 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 that (4) The State shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground, including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, color, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth.-contravened as read together with Articles 2, 10, 19, 20 & 232 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
-An ORDER OF COMPENSATION in my favor and to be borne by the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission Mr. George Nyakundi, the Advocates Complaints Commission jointly and severally for purposes of redressing the harm that I have had to suffer on account of violation of Articles 2, 10, 19, 20, 25, 28, 43(1)(f) & 232 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
-An ORDER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW in the nature of MANDAMUS compelling the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission Mr. George Nyakundi, the Advocates Complaints Commission y to put in place measures to ensure that the Constitution and the values espoused by the Charter of Service Delivery are complied with...since their conduct is an abuse of due process of the course of law, bad in law and ought to be reviewed.
- I pray the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) / Ombudsman recommend remedial action including:- to hold and find that the conduct of the Chief Executive Officer / Information Access Officer of the Advocates Complaints Commission Mr. George Nyakundi, the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary jointly and severally was unfair and unprofessional, which action impugned Article 59(2) (h-k) of the Constitution and Section 2 and 8(a), (b) and (d) of the Commission of Administrative Justice Act.
-I pray the Commission on Administrative Justice to exercise of its powers under Article 59(2)(j) of the Constitution on reporting on complaints investigated under paragraphs (h)-to investigate any conduct in state affairs, or any act or omission in public administration in any sphere of government, that is alleged or suspected to be prejudicial or improper or to result in any impropriety or prejudice; and (i)-to investigate complaints of abuse of power, unfair treatment, manifest injustice or unlawful, oppressive, unfair or unresponsive official conduct; and take remedial action; and Section 8(g)-to recommend compensation or other appropriate remedies against persons or bodies to which this Act applies;
-Charge the respondents with 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;
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 MIGORI THIS 23RDTH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Constructive criticism is welcome for the value.