(A.):- Introduction
1.-The Respondent-Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua's DECISION against me the Indigent-Complainant in the subordinate cause was based on my Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 as submitted then, of I the Indigent-Complainant Erick Otieno Mango Versus the Defendants Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) which was anchored on :-
"the tort of professional negligence-and-liability as concerns breach-of-duty and nuisance with regards to continuous-violations-of-the-law traffic-accident evidence-destruction / spoliation series-of-crimes political-legal abuses involving Owade & Co. Advocates in cahoots with Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) conjunctively with accomplices and co-conspirators including Migori Police Station Traffic Police and Kihara-Construction, plus two ex-Chiefs of Suna East Amara and Odero-and-his-son, plus Peter-and-Pamela Mango the dysfunctional, compulsive-neurotic sex-perverts I've disowned pending due process… as detailed in the attached blog-site authorities links memos-letter correspondences to civil-society-groups and concerned authorities" ; as cited in Per Anderson B in "Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. 1865 "that the tort-of-Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do."
2.-That pursuant to the said basis-of-my Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 as submitted then, which the Advocates Complaints Commission went forth to reiterate therein above that the mandate of the Commission as lies 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; and further, that my allegation wasn't be backed by any evidence authorizing them to inquire deeper into the complaint, thus lacked 'substance'.
3.-I hereby take this solemn opportunity in application pursuant to the provisions of Order 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 as read together with Section 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code to seek orders that I the Indigent-Complainant be granted leave to AMEND this Complaint-No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36-with reference to-CAJ/ATI/ACC/001/44/23-MW lodged with the Commission from the 19th August 2022 through to the submission deadline of 4th October 2022 because of my govt. of Kenya's political-legal imposed indigent / penniless-pauperism status which couldn't allow me to lodge it in one piece and instead had to in bits-and-pieces; premised on grounds set-out as follows:-
(a.):-"That the proposed amendments are intended to bring before this Honorable' Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman the real matters in controversy between the Parties herein so that the same are determined on their true and substantive merits.
(b.):-The proposed amendments are further necessitated by information relevant for the fair and just determination of the real questions in controversy in this appeal which came to me, the Indigent-Complainant's knowledge subsequent to the filing of the Petition.
(c.):-The time allowed under the Civil Procedure Act and Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice Procedure Rules 2013 for amendment of Petition has not expired.
(d.):-The proposed amendments will not occasion any prejudice to the Respondent Advocates Complaints Commission ;
(e.):-The proposed amendments arise out of the same facts or substantially the same facts in respect of which relief is claimed by me the Indigent-Complainant ;
(f.):-It is therefore in the interest of justice that I the Indigent-Complainant should be granted leave to amend its Petition filed herein."
4.-In that context, I aver that the issue of amendment of pleadings is not novel and has been the subject of numerous Court decisions, the common denominator being that as a general principle, Courts will normally allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings if it can be done without occasioning injustice or prejudice to the other party and which prejudice can be compensated by an award of costs - See generally Eastern Bakery vs Castelino (1958) EA 461, Ochieng and Others vs First National Bank of Chicago Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1991 and Kenya Commercial Bank vs Kenyatta National Hospital & Another (2003) 2 EA.
5.-My Amended-Complaint-No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36-with reference to-CAJ/ATI/ACC/001/44/23-MW being as much a Constitutional Petition as far as the Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms go the rules of procedure applicable are the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013. In that regard, Rule 18 of the Rules provides that, "a party that wishes to amend its pleadings at any stage of the proceedings may do so with the leave of the Court". As to the applicability of that Rule, in The Institute for Social Accountability and Another vs Parliament of Kenya and 2 Others Petition No.71 of 2013, the Court stated that;
"Rule 18 of the Rules clearly stipulates that the court may permit an amendment at any stage of the proceedings. The court will normally allow parties to make such amendments as may be necessary for determining the real questions in controversy or to avoid a multiplicity of suits, provided there has been no undue delay, no new or inconsistent cause of action is introduced, and no vested interest or accrued legal right is affected and that the amendment can be allowed without an injustice to the other side."
6.-In this regard I also rely by thee Precedent Authority aka Case-law or Common-Law on the case of The Institute for Social Accountability (supra) where the Court stated as follows as regards the purpose of amendments;
"The object of amendments is to enable the parties to alter their pleadings so as to ensure that the litigation between them is conducted, not on the false hypothesis of the facts already pleaded or the relief or remedy already claimed, but rather on the basis of the true state of the facts which the parties really and finally intend to rely on. The power of amendment makes the function of the court more effective in determining the substantive merits of the case rather than holding it captive to form of the action or proceedings."
7.-In applying the above principles here, I the Indigent-Complainant am of the view that the ends of justice will be achieved and the principles and values enunciated in 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 will better be served if this my Amended-Complaint-No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36-with reference to-CAJ/ATI/ACC/001/44/23-MW herein is allowed and the issues in contest dealt with wholly.
8.-Chapter Six of the Constitution of Kenya-2010 provides Leadership and Integrity requirements while the Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003 (POEA), the Leadership and Integrity Act (LIA), 2011 and other relevant regulations prescribe the codes of Ethics and Conduct for public officers. Article 73, provides for the thresholds of personal integrity, competence and suitability prerequisites for any appointments.
9.-Chapter Six CoK-2010 further obligates all public officers to behave in manners that safeguard the dignity-and-honor of the offices and promote public confidence in the integrity of the offices ; which emphatically with Article 3 CoK-2010 obligates us citizens whom sovereignty lies-with, to respect, uphold and protect the Constitution ; as read together with Section 4(1) of the Leadership and Integrity Act (LIA), 2011, which apportions responsibility on every person to implement the provision of the Leadership and Integrity Act (LIA), 2011 ; either and/or by seeking legal redress for any contraventions of Chapter Six and integrity requirements. In this instance I rely on the precedent / case law authorities in both :-
(a.):-Watitu and Mumo Matemu, where the Court of Appeal affirmed that any Kenyan has the locus standi in seeking judicial redress on breach of Chapter Six provided the person acts in good faith and for public good ; and
(b.):-Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance Vs the AG & Others, Nairobi, HC Pet. No. 229 of 2012.-"Kenyans intended that Chapter Six and Article 73 will be enforced in the spirit in which they included them in the Constitution. The people of Kenya did not intend that these provisions on integrity and suitability for public offices be merely SUGGESTIONS, SUPERFLUOUS or ORNAMENTAL; they did not intend to include these provisions as LOFTY ASPIRATIONS."
11.-I thus urge the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman to compel the Advocates-Complaints-Commission-and-its-Secretary c/o OAG being the principal regulator of the legal profession in Kenya in accordance with the edict in Advocates Act Section 53 Cap 16, mandating it to protect the general public in matters touching to, incidental or ancillary to the law, to hence exercise its powers under Section 57 & 60(1)(2)(3) with regards to expeditiously investigating-and-prosecuting the adversely mentioned unscrupulous Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) lawyers' aggravated professional-misconducts
Breach-of-Contracts in each respective instance since they flouted-and-violated mandatory procedure in statutory-and-constitutional guidelines choosing to rather engage in alien procedure that resulted in illegalities grounding my claims for violation-infringement of my fundamental rights-and-freedoms ; as read together with Sec 61(3) on the OAG exercise of disciplinary powers; and as read together with Sec 61(1) on binding orders and 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); not to mention as read together with the LSK Act Cap 18, Cap 15 & Article 59(4); and the provisions of the Rules of Court on the administration of the Evidence Act CAP 80 encompassing the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in legal proceedings besides generally referring to that which is used to prove facts in issue or facts from which facts-in-issue may be deduced ; as read together with the Practice and Procedure Rules 2013 aka ("Mutunga Rules") of which the overriding scope-and-objective is to facilitate access to justice for all persons with regards to enforcement of the Bill of Rights under Article 22(3) as concerns the Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms... as read together with Article 23 and Article 165 (3) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya ; for which in this regard, Sub rule 4 provides that the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Mutunga Rules shall facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of all cases ; and where-by furthermore, Sub rule 7 states that the Court shall pursue access to justice for all persons including the poor, illiterate, uninformed, unrepresented, and persons with disabilities... as read together with Articles 47 on administrative-dysfunctions or impunity in the context of administrative-action in Article 59(1) (h)(i)(k); to thus process this Application under a Certificate-of-Urgency and commence HEARING it thenceforth in the first instance due to the nature of the 11 years 7 months Uhuru's, Raila's (in my broad lawsuit) and now Ruto's AMACO-INSURANCE criminal-conspiracies' political-legal abuses delays, and reliefs-sought amid death-threats which endlessly violate my fundamental rights and freedoms as provided-for in Articles 25(a-d), 27(1-5), 28, 29(a-f) 45(2), 48 and 50(1) as demonstrated explicitly-and-implicitly in detail in my correspondences to civil-society-groups and recorded in my blog-sites including who's links can be downloaded-and-printed here:
...and ( https://www.pd.co.ke/news/ruto-cabinet-secretaries-sworn-in-155630/ )-whereby on the dawn of swearing-in his cabinet the corrupt thief and ICC-Indicted William Samoei Ruto made orders for my internet to be cut jus' as I was 'bout to present my final-submission of the Amended-Complaint-No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36-with reference to-CAJ/ATI/ACC/001/44/23-MW to the Advocates-Complaints-Commission-and-its-Secretary c/o Attorney General Justin Muturi who happens to be his political buddy. Simple math...you can join-the dots or add 1+1 ;
SUBMISSIONS / PLEADINGS / AVERMENTS
(1.)-I contend that because judicial review applications seek to question the process used to arrive at certain decisions by administrative bodies, that then I the abused GoK-victim
Indigent-Complainant is entitled to lodge a judicial review application against the
Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua's arbitrary-and-preemptive decision since they played an active role in rejecting-and-discarding the adduced evidence not to mention failing to hold a fair-hearing purposefully meant to lay grounds to create "Reasonable Doubt" so as to justify the potential to "Dismiss Motions and/or Achieve Mistrials" to exonerate the unscrupulous Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) from prosecution including associatedly in foundation to the above deduced more serious underlying wide-spread continuous-violations-of-the-law series-of-criminal-conspiracies virtue of the corrupt-legacy of the Office-of-the-Attorney-General to shield the executive from prosecution, thus conffering the same benefit of exoneration to the thief and ICC-Indicted mass-murderer (Terrorist) Executive Dictator Ruto's Amaco-Insurance 10m+ damages in the now 11years-7months Kihara-Construction Accident Canter KAS 535K since 14th June 2012 when the case is processed for determinations which is a mean-feat "Obstruction-and-Perversion of Justice" as relates to the involvement of the adversely mentioned Migori-Police-Station OCS-and-investigating-cops, Suna East Assistant Chief Onyango plus the other accomplices / co-conspirators in a reckless dereliction of duty / malfeasance contravening, infringing and violating quoted articles herein as enshhrined in the constitution ;
(3)-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that Judicial review deals with the legality of the decisions-making process of bodies or persons whose decisions are susceptible to judicial review. A decision can be upset through certiorari on a matter of law if on the face of it, it is made without jurisdiction or in consequence of an error of law.
(2.)-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua abused the legal process and more so powers vested to them under the law and the constitution[ and for which I take refuge in the authority of Joram Mwenda Guantai vs. The Chief Magistrate, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 228 of 2003 [2007] 2 EA 170, where the Court of Appeal held: "It is trite that an Order of Prohibition is an order from the High Court directed to an inferior tribunal or body which forbids that tribunal or body to continue proceedings therein in excess of its jurisdiction or in contravention of the laws of the land. It lies, not only in excess of jurisdiction or absence of it but also for a departure from the rules of natural justice. It does not, however, lie to correct the course, practice or procedure of an inferior tribunal, or a wrong decision on the merits of the proceedings...Equally so, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to grant an order of prohibition to a person charged before a subordinate court and considers himself to be a victim of oppression. If the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is oppressive and vexatious, the Judge has the power to intervene and the High Court has the an inherent power and the duty to secure fair treatment for all persons who are brought before the court or to a subordinate court and to prevent an abuse of the process of the court." ]...
-I the Indigent-Complainant takes refuge, with regards to facts-derived-from-matters-of-law and vice-versa in the case-law authority in Mohammed Gulam Hussein Fazal Karmali & Another vs. Chief Magistrate's Court Nairobi & Another [ 2006 ] eKLR where Nyamu J examined the policy considerations for halting criminal proceedings, noting that judicial and quasi-judicial bodies have two fundamental policy considerations to take into account which were enunciated in the case of M. Devao vs. Department of Labour (190) in sur 464 at 481 as: "The first is that the public interests in the administration of justice require that the court protects its ability to function as a court of law, by ensuring that its processes are used fairly by State and citizen alike. The second is that, unless the court protects its ability to function in that way, its failure will lead to an erosion of public confidence by reason of concern that the court processes may lend themselves to oppression and injustice…the court grants a permanent stay in order to prevent the criminal process from being used for purposes alien to the administration of criminal justice under the law. It may intervene in this way if it concludes that the court processes are being employed for ulterior purposes or in such a way as to cause improper vexation and oppression."
(i.)-The Amended-Complaint-No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36-with-reference-to-CAJ/ATI/ACC/001/44/23-MW dated 12/11/2015 subject of the intended charges was never served upon the unscrupulous Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ).
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua's failure and contravention of their statute and constitutional mandate to "enforce the rule of law" thus casts serious doubt on their ability to serve as impartial fact-finders independently overseeing complaints since their bias is the basis of a premeditated wide-spread continuous-violations-of-the-law series-of-criminal-conspiracies to lay grounds to create "Reasonable Doubt" so as to justify the potential to "Dismiss Motions and/or Achieve Mistrials" to exonerate the thief and ICC-Indicted mass-murderer (Terrorist) Executive Dictator Ruto's Amaco-Insurance 10m+ damages in the now 11years-7months Kihara-Construction Accident Canter KAS 535K since 14th June 2012 when the case is processed for determinations which is a mean-feat "Obstruction / Perversion of Justice" associatedly in foundation to the above deduced serious underlying wide-spread continuous-violations-of-the-law series-of-criminal-conspiracies involving the unscrupulous Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) and by extension the adversely mentioned Migori-Police-Station OCS and investigating-cops, Suna East Assistant Chief Onyango plus the other accomplices / co-conspirators in a reckless dereliction of duty / malfeasance contraveningthe quoted authorities, establishedprinciples-and-doctrines of law..; facts which violated-and-contravened Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code providing that: "215. The court having heard both the complainant and the accused person and their witnesses and evidence shall either convict the accused and pass sentence upon or make an order against him according to law, or shall acquit him"
(ii.)-The unscrupulous Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) which are duly incorporated legal entities have not been charged and no recommendation to charge them was made by the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua.
(iii.)-The arbitrary-and-preemptive decision by the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua to reject-and-close my Amended-Complaint-No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36-with reference to-CAJ/ATI/ACC/001/44/23-MW is intended to punish, inconvenience, prejudice, ridicule and embarrass me the Indigent-Complainant for filing a civil-and-criminal complaint touching on the executive for purposes of commencing proceedings against the adversely-mentioned vested-interest parties.
(iv.)-The arbitrary-and-preemptive decision to reject-and-close my Amended-Complaint-No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36-with reference to-CAJ/ATI/ACC/001/44/23-MW is intended to legally bar me the victim Indigent-Complainant from exercising my legal-and-lawful rights under the CAJA to lodge a complaint to the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman against the unscrupulous Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) and by extension the the thief and ICC-Indicted mass-murderer (Terrorist) Executive Dictator Ruto's Amaco-Insurance 10m+ damages in the now 11years-7months Kihara-Construction Accident Canter KAS 535K since 14th June 2012 plus the other adversely mentioned conspirator-accomplices including the Migori-Police-Station OCS and investigating-cops, Suna East Assistant Chief Onyango.
(v.)-The Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua deliberately and by calculated design with a view to violate my Indigent-Complainant's enshrined fundamental-rights and freedoms as provided in the constitution knowingly, deliberately and intentionally after discarding all evidence submitted before them without bothering to investigate-or-corroborate the veracity / authenticity of the same.
(vi)-The Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua's arbitrary-and-preemptive decision to reject-and-close my Amended-Complaint-No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36-with reference to-CAJ/ATI/ACC/001/44/23-MW is designed, calculated and intended to achieve extraneous-and-collateral purposes and meant to lay grounds to create "Reasonable Doubt" so as to justify the potential to "Dismiss Motions and/or Achieve Mistrials" to exonerate the thief and ICC-Indicted mass-murderer (Terrorist) Executive Dictator Ruto's Amaco-Insurance of the Kihara-Construction Accident Canter KAS 535K
when the case is processed for determinations in the said civil-and-criminal proceedings which is a flagrant "Obstruction-and-Perversion of Justice" associatedly in addition to the above deduced more serious underlying wide-spread continuous-violations-of-the-law series-of-criminal-conspiracies involving the unscrupulous Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) and by extension the adversely mentioned Migori-Police-Station OCS and investigating-cops, Suna East Assistant Chief Onyango plus the other accomplices / co-conspirators in a reckless dereliction of duty / malfeasance contravening the cited articles of the constitution, established principles-and-doctrines of the law;
(vii.)-The arbitrary-and-preemptive decision to reject-and-close my Amended-Complaint-No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36-with reference to-CAJ/ATI/ACC/001/44/23-MW is aimed at aiding-and-giving the GoK broad dictatorial powers to gaslight me the Indigent-Complainant for purposes of exploiting institutionalizing me alltogether short of disinheriting-and-burying me alive for purposes of obliterating my broad lawsuit as was and has been threatened-and-attempted by the Migori-Police-Station OCS and Suna East Assistant Chief Onyango in conjunction with the adversely-mentioned accomplices since this instant-complaint is the key to prosecuting all the other transgressions of my broad lawsuit.
(viii.)-The laws of Kenya provide essential safeguards for a fair trial which is also entrenched in the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the arbitrary-and-preemptive decision by the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua to reject-and-close my Amended-Complaint-No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36-with reference to-CAJ/ATI/ACC/001/44/23-MW demonstrates the fact of their deliberate intention not to accord me the GoK victim Indigent-Complainant a fair trial as enshrined in Article 50(1) that: "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."
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua are political-legal hacks serving the ends of the Office of the President executive dictator.
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that all kenyans must be treated equally under the law & that includes public & state officers.
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua's willful refusal to comply with adduced-evidence commitments in liasing with the ODPPeninah in interstate-agencies cooperation is a criminal act that constitutes contempt of judicial and/or quasi-judicial proceedings and warrants referral to the appropriate authorities including the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman, ODPP and the National Assembly for prosecutions & removals from office as prescribed by law.
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua's arbitrary-decision violates the "principle of the right to be heard" which's a fundamental element of any competent, lawful decision and hence theirs has no basis in law, is illegal, null and void and sets a dangerous precedent where the The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua can discard evidence arbitrarily to confer benefits to cronies or highest bidders... a phenomenon that justifies the ongoing corruption-criticism of the judicial-and-legal fratenity vis-à-vis the executive.
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that prohibition restrains abuse or excess of power.
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman has the power and indeed the duty to bring to a halt and review flawed proceedings where the same are being brought for malicious-and-ulterior motives or for the achievement of some collateral purpose as demonstrated by the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua notwithstanding the constitutional-and-legal powers conferred upon them;
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua exercised their discretion with a view to achieving certain extraneous goals other than those legally recognised under the Constitution and the Office of the Advocates Complaints Commission instead of exercising the same to undertake investigations and prosecute in accordance with the Constitution and the ACC Act ;
(a.)-The Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua sought to pre-empt and curtail their legislated mandate to enforce the law by their (investigate department constituted of the 2-CID Officers) as enshrined within the Constitution of Kenya and the ACC Act;
(b.)-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the fact that any matter in issue in any criminal proceedings is also directly or substantially in issue in any pending civil proceeding shall not be a ground for any stay, prohibition or delay of the criminal proceedings;
(c.)-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that I adduced sufficient evidence before the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua on merit and their sabotage failure to verify the same demonstrates that prejudice was occasioned;
(d.)-The Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua in the discharge of its duties and functions, are required to inter alia respect, observe and uphold the following Constitutional provisions which they deliberately, knowingly and intentionally violated, contravened and failed-to:-
-have regard to public interest, the interests of administration of justice and the need to prevent and avoid abuse of the legal process;
-uphold and defend the Constitution; the national values and principles of governance enshrined in Article 10 in the application, interpretation of the Constitution as well in making and implementing the laws and public policy decision;
-respect, observe, protect, implement, promote and uphold rights and freedoms in the Bill of Rights enshrined in Article 21(1);
-be accountable to the public for decisions and actions taken and generally observe Article 73(2)
-be accountable for administrative acts and observances of the values and principles of public service Article 232 (e);
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua exercised the power-of-the-discretion-of-their-office in breach of the constitutional provisions and the ACC Act by acting maliciously, capriciously and by abusing the (quasi)-judicial process contrary to public policy and thus mandating the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman to thus intervene under Section xyz(8) of the Constitution
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that what constitutes an abuse of the court process involves consideration of the following principles :-
(i) Whether the criminal prosecution is instituted-or-not for a purpose other than the purpose for which it is properly designed;
(ii) Whether the complainant on whose behalf the criminal proceedings are supposed to be lodged has been deprived of their fundamental right to a fair-hearing as envisaged in the provisions of the constitution;
(iii) Whether the judicial-process is against public policy."
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the Advocates Complaints Commission and its
Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua are expected to be professional in the conduct of their investigations and ought not to be driven by malice or other collateral considerations;
(e.)-Hence in executing its mandate, the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua acted with and in excess of the powers as conferred by the law and therefore acted maliciously, infringed, violated, contravened and in all manners failed to comply with, respect or observe the foregoing provisions of the Constitution and Statute;
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua are under obligation to act impartially and independently on receipt of a complaint and are expected to carry out thorough investigations which would ordinarily involve taking into account the versions presented by both the complainant and the suspect... all facets which they deliberately, knowingly, unlawfully, wrongfully and intentionally contravened, violated and infringed ;
-The National Prosecution Policy, revised in 2015 provides at page 5 that:- "Public Prosecutors in applying the evidential test should objectively assess the TOTALITY-of-the-evidence both for-and-against the suspect and satisfy themselves that it establishes a realistic prospect of conviction, i.e. in other words, Public Prosecutors should ask themselves, would an impartial tribunal convict on the basis of the evidence available? ...all facets which they deliberately, knowingly, unlawfully, wrongfully and intentionally contravened, violated and infringed ;
(f.)-The respondent Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua did not require the consent, direction or control of any person or authority yet in violating the constitution and statute they corruptly did so for purposes of conferring..;
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that no one is allowed to use the machinery of justice to cause injustice nor to use criminal proceedings as an excuse to interfere with a fair civil trial or vice versa;
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that in this matter the Advocates Complaints Commission
and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua was more motivated by the desire to punish me the Indigent-Complainant and to oppress me into acceding to the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua demands on behalf of the executive Ruto's defendant Amaco-Insurance by abusing their discretion under the criminal law, than any genuine desire to prosecute Owade & Co. Advocates
and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) on behalf of the crimes committed. The predominant purpose was to further that ulterior motive and this is where the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman steps in ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that I adduced proper material evidence factual foundation-and-basis on which the respondent Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua had with certainty reasonable-and-probable cause for mounting a criminal prosecution ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the discretion given to the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua is not absolute but must be exercised within certain laid down standards provided under the Constitution and the ACC Act; and that where it is alleged that these standards have not been adhered to, it then behoves the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman to investigate the said allegations and make a determination thereon since to hold that the discretion given to the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua to arbitrarily reject-and-close file-cases ought not to be questioned by the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman would be an abhorrent affront to judicial conscience and above all, the Constitution itself... for which I take refuge with the sentiments expressed in the precedent case-law authority of Nakusa vs. Tororei & 2 Others (No. 2) Nairobi HCEP No. 4 of 2003 [2008] 2 KLR (EP) 565 to the effect that : "The High Court has a constitutional role as the bulwark of liberty and the rule of law to interpret the Constitution and to ensure, through enforcement, enjoyment by the citizenry of their fundamental rights and freedoms which had suffered erosion during the one party system…In interpreting the Constitution, the Court must uphold and give effect to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, always ensuring that the interpretation is in tandem with aspirations of the citizenry and modern trend..." as well as also for which I take refuge in the point demonstrated in the judgement of Domnic Arony Amolo vs. Attorney General Miscellaneous Application No. 494 of 2003 that interpretation of the Constitution has to be progressive and in the words of Prof M V Plyee in his book, Constitution of the World: "The Courts are not to give traditional meaning to the words and phrases of the Constitution as they stood at the time the Constitution was framed but to give broader connotation to such words and connotation in the context of the changing needs of time… In our role as "sentinels" of fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizen which are founded on laissez-faire conception of the individual in society and in part also on the political – philosophical traditions of the West, we must eschew judicial self-imposed restraint or judicial passivism which was characteristic in the days of one party state. Even if it be at the risk of appearing intransigent "sentinels" of personal liberty, the Court must enforce the Bill of Rights in our Constitution where violation is proved, and where appropriate, strike down any provision of legislation found to be repugnant to constitutional right."
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua unashamedly engaged in unprecedented alien-disregard for due-procedure and evidence-law whereby throughout our engagements-and-deliberations evidence indicates a pattern of routine, pervasive conspiracy of deliberate wide-spread continuous-violations-of-the-law series-of-criminal-conspiracies to lay grounds to create "Reasonable Doubt" so as to justify the potential to "Dismiss Motions and/or Achieve Mistrials" to exonerate the thief and ICC-Indicted mass-murderer (Terrorist) Executive Dictator Ruto's Amaco-Insurance 10m+ damages in the now 11years-7months Kihara-Construction Accident Canter KAS 535K since 14th June 2012 when the case is processed for determinations which is a mean-feat "Obstruction / Perversion of Justice"
associatedly in foundation to the above deduced serious underlying wide-spread continuous-violations-of-the-law series-of-criminal-conspiracies involving the unscrupulous Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) and by extension the adversely mentioned Migori-Police-Station OCS and investigating-cops, Suna East Assistant Chief Onyango plus the other accomplices / co-conspirators in a reckless dereliction of duty / malfeasance contraveningthe quoted authorities, establishedprinciples-and-doctrines of law;
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua deliberately declined to take up the case;
-A fair hearing ensures transparency unlike the deliberate opaque, behind-the-scenes corruption shady nature of the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua which was premeditated to hijack-and-obstruct the due process course of the law and justice;
- The Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua acted unethically, unlawfully in opposing efforts to establish evidence;
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua dismissed my arguments and counter-arguments and knowingly evaded, failed to gather, verify, corroborate or weigh the adduced incriminating, tangible, direct, substantial evidence of contractual undertakings or establish records and hence are liable by default for declining to gather adduced evidence in discovery since it was a willful violation of the law;
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua failed to depose the unscrupulous Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) intentionally for the predetermined purpose to obstruct justice... or any other related witnesses thereof;
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua made faux constitutional claims motivated by the politics of the thief and ICC-Indicted mass-murderer (Terrorist) Executive Dictator Ruto's Amaco-Insurance assuming office and taking over the govt. as demonstrated; not to mention the corrupt legacy of the Office of the Attorney General vis-à-vis the Executive / Office of the President of The Republic of Kenya;
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua had no principled basis to oppose investigations to corroborate evidence;
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua's wrongful arbitrary-decision to reject-and-close my file was based on deliberate
misinterpretation and ignorance of the law;
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua exploited the powers of their mandate to abuse office for the predetermined purpose of laying grounds to create
"Reasonable Doubt" so as to justify the potential to "Dismiss Motions and/or Achieve Mistrials" so as to improperly confer the benefit of exoneration to the thief and ICC-Indicted mass-murderer (Terrorist) Executive Dictator Ruto's Amaco-Insurance 10m+ damages in the now 11years-7months Kihara-Construction Accident Canter KAS 535K since 14th June 2012 when the case is processed for determinations which is a mean-feat "Obstruction / Perversion of Justice" associatedly in foundation to the above deduced serious underlying wide-spread continuous-violations-of-the-law series-of-criminal-conspiracies involving the unscrupulous Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) and by extension the adversely mentioned Migori-Police-Station OCS-and-investigating-cops, Suna East Assistant Chief Onyango plus the other accomplices / co-conspirators in a reckless dereliction of duty / malfeasance contravening quoted articles and established principles-and-doctrines of the law;
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua jointly or otherwise deliberately refused to investigate, interrogate and/or compel the adversely mentioned parties to answer queries under oath so as to expose corruption in the public offices;
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua abused the discretionary-powers of their office by deliberately failing to hold mandated-and-obligated fair-hearings which would've ensured transparency-and-truth in the aforementioned due proceedings for the aforementioned predetermined purposes;
-I aver that the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua should've exercised extreme care and caution not to interfere with the Constitutional-and-Statute powers of their office as relates to me the Indigent-Complainant and as such I implore the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman to intervene since by the foregoing the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua in bad faith-and-will abused due process in the exercise of their powers, office and discretion contrary to the Constitution. This demonstrating that they deliberately, knowingly, unlawfully and intentionally failed to act independently and instead acted capriciously, in bad faith and abused due process ;
-I aver that my case as the Indigent-Complainant is that the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua are mandated under the aforementioned articles and established principles-and-doctrines of the law and the Constitution to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any advocate in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed and that it's the constitutional mandate of the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua to investigate and undertake prosecution in the exercise of the discretion conferred upon that office subject to the aforementionedarticles and established principles-and-doctrines of the law;
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman is mandated with inherent powers to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over state-agencies, public bodies-and-offices, tribunals or individuals acting in administrative or quasi-judicial capacity ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that should the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua have undertaken investigations to their logical conclusions, they would have gathered the substantial, concrete, tangible, irrefutable material-evidence they rejected-and-discarded upon which to mount the prosecutable case they were corruptly evaded to confer the benefit of exoneration
to the thief and ICC-Indicted mass-murderer (Terrorist) Executive Dictator Ruto's Amaco-Insurance 10m+ damages in the now 11years-7months Kihara-Construction Accident Canter KAS 535K since 14th June 2012 when the case is processed for determinations which is a mean-feat "Obstruction-and-Perversion of Justice" as relates to the above deduced serious underlying wide-spread continuous-violations-of-the-law series-of-criminal-conspiracies involving the adversely mentioned Migori-Police-Station OCS-and-investigating-cops, Suna East Assistant Chief Onyango plus the other accomplices / co-conspirators in a reckless dereliction of duty / malfeasance contravening, infringing and violating the aforementioned articles and established principles-and-doctrines of the law;
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that in other words the arbitrary-and-preemptive decision of the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua was informed by the need to ultimately exonerate prosecution of the thief and ICC-Indicted mass-murderer (Terrorist) Executive Dictator Ruto's Amaco-Insurance 10m+ damages in the now 11years-7months Kihara-Construction Accident Canter KAS 535K since 14th June 2012 in the obvious foreseeable future course-of-events; an alien conduct which cannot be said to be exercise of discretion in good faith or will ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that decision that is based on fear of results of futuristic investigation to exonerate cannot be permitted to stay ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that my petition Amended-Complaint-No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36-with-reference-to-CAJ/ATI/ACC/001/44/23-MW is a prima facie case based on the credible evidence that the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua rejected-and-discarded despite the facts therein disclosing the commission of offences;
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the deliberate, unlawful, wrongful, intentional, non-invocation of the criminal process towards that end reeks of abuse of power... and for which I rely on the matter of Keroche Industries Limited vs. Kenya Revenue Authority & 5 Others Nairobi HCMA No. 743 of 2006 [2007] 2 KLR 240 while citing Reg vs. Secretary of State for the Environment Ex Parte NottinghamShire Country Council [1986] AC : "A power which is abused should be treated as a power which has not been lawfully exercised…A public authority must not be allowed by the court to get away with illogical, immoral or an act with conspicuous unfairness as has happened in this matter, and in so acting abuse its powers..."...In this connection I also rely on Lord Scarman who put the need for the courts intervention beyond doubt in the ex-parte Preston where he stated the principle of intervention in these terms: "I must make clear my view that the principle of fairness has an important place in the law of judicial review: and that in an appropriate case, it is a ground upon which the court can intervene to quash a decision made by a public officer or authority in purported exercise of a power conferred by law..."...In this connection I also rely on the same principle as was affirmed by the same Judge in the House of Lords in Reg vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex- parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Business Ltd [1982] AC 617 that: "A claim for judicial review may arise where the Commissioners have failed to discharge their statutory duty to an individual or have abused their powers or acted outside them and also that unfairness in the purported exercise of a power can be such that it is an abuse or excess of power. In other words it is unimportant whether the unfairness is analytically within or beyond the power conferred by law: on either view, judicial review must reach it..." ...In this connection I also rely on Lord Templeman who reached the same decision in the same case in those helpful words: "Judicial review is available where a decision-making authority exceeds its powers, commits an error of law, commits a breach of natural justice, reaches a decision which no reasonable tribunal could have reached or abuses its powers."
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that failure to consider a legitimate expectation is a failure to consider a relevant consideration and this would in turn call for the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman's intervention in assuming jurisdiction and giving the necessary relief... for which I rely on the case-law authority of R (Bibi) vs. Newham London Borough Council [2001] EWCA 607, [2002] WLR 237 ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that abuse of power includes the use of power for a collateral purpose as set out in ex-parte Preston, reneging without adequate justification on an otherwise lawful decision, on a lawful promise or practice ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman is a constitutional commission established under Article 59 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya.
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua falls within the ambit of public service as contemplated by Article 260 of the Constitution and thus within the ambit of Section 29(1) of the Commission on Administrative Justice Act.
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver that the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman 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, and that pursuant to Article 59(5) of the Constitution as read together with Section 4 of the CAJA, the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman has the status and powers of a commission within the meaning of Chapter 15 of the Constitution of Kenya ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant aver further that the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman has been given a wide mandate under Articles 59(2) (h)–(k), 249 and 252 of the Constitution as read together with Sections 8, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the CAJA ;
- It is my case the Indigent-Complainant that the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua arbitrary-decision not to carry-out any investigations was in breach of Section 30(h) of the CAJA ;
22.-The Advocates Act, Cap. 16 of the Laws of Kenya is the guiding-statute which expressly provides for the disciplinary processes against Advocates in the country supplemented by the Advocates (Disciplinary Committee) Rules, 1990 vide Legal Notice No. 458 of 1990 and the Advocates (Complaints Commission) (Structure and Procedure) Rules, 2003 under Legal Notice No. 213 of 2003. as well as the CoK-2010 which being the highest law of the land, applies across all State organs, State officers, public officers and all persons whenever any of them applies or interprets the Constitution, enacts, applies or interprets any law or makes or implements public policy decisions.
23.As creatures of the law, the processes governing the disciplinary procedures for Advocates must, therefore, firmly adhere to the Constitution and the law. That is the essence of the rule of law and constitutionalism as espoused in Article 10 of the Constitution. Needless to say, under Article 3, the Constitution obligates every person to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution.
24.-My grievance as the GoK-imposed-Indigent-Complainant's pauperism stems from the contention that the discriminative, political-legal abuse, defective decision was made / issued in violation of mandatory procedure as required under Section 77 as read together with Section 60 of the Advocates Act and Rule 8 of the Advocates (Disciplinary Committee) Rules thus denying me the opportunity to be heard.
26.-It's at this point that I inferred the influence of the Executive, ( President William Samoei Ruto who owns the AMACO-INSURANCE Company Ltd at the center of the traffic accident ) ; customarily shielded by the Office of the Attorney General Kenya, from prosecution as was demonstrated by the US's Sanction on former Attorney General Amos Wako, wife and son ( worse in this case because the current Attorney General Justin Muturi is President William Samoei Ruto's political appointee-and-buddy ;... on the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary especially since he'd had my mobile internet cut-off the day he was swearing-in his Cabinet ; and thus did I concede to what the Migori ODPP had bluntly put regarding the State shielding the Executive and his economy-cartel cronies from prosecution (rd. 'Honor among thieves')
30.-Administratively, the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary operate as a department in the Office of the Attorney General and Department of Justice. It comprises the Chairman, Commissioner, Commission Secretary, 24 State Counsel , 23 Para-legal staff and 2 CID officers who work hand in hand towards the realization of its mandate. It contributes significantly in achieving the goals of the National Vision 2030 by enhancing the rule of law and administration of justice. It remains a key player in the realization of National Vision 2030 by administering justice and professional discipline in the practice of law to realize the Vision's aims of creating "a globally competitive and prosperous country with a high quality of life by 2030". It aims to transform Kenya into "a newly-industrializing, middle income country providing a high quality of life to all its citizens in a clean and secure environment".
(B.):- Background
12.-In order to fully understand me, the Indigent-Complainant's Application, it is imperative to highlight the gist of my Amended-Complaint-No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36-with reference to-CAJ/ATI/ACC/001/44/23-MW In my subsequent Submission dated Wed, Nov 16 at 5:27 PM I averred that Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua who is the Secretary of the Advocates Complaints Commission violated the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act No 46 of 2016 aka Contempt-of-Court or of Judicial-Process or Contempt-in-Procedure, or just Civil-Contempt which are quasi-criminal in nature and consist-and-refer to conduct of parties abusing the judicial process to the irritation-and-annoyance of their opponents for purposes of interfering with the efficient-and-effective administration of justice by impeding-and-perverting the course of the same through failing to comply with court-orders, directions of tribunals or breaching of judicial-processes undertakings { Osborne's Concise Law Dictionary, P. 102 and Kenyalaw.org } and Chapter Six of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 as she continued to discharge her responsibilities as the Secretary of the Advocates Complaints Commission... as demonstrated in the Wed, Nov 16 at 5:27 PM letter's caption below...:-
"Dear Sir / Madam,
Briefly, after I'd managed to complete up to between 90-95% of the ACC c/o OAG submission-presentations exhausting the issues raised by the ACC-Secretary who'd cut the Nairobi-HQ travel-lodging meeting logistics expenses to a phone-call finally called past their programmed-schedule of 'in the course of the week' between 7-11th November, 2022 this morning on Monday, November 14, 2022 repeating the same issues I'd already exhausted in my written-submissions and/or as lodged in their portal; though my phone battery died midway.
The bone-of-contention is that the ACC-Secretary had asked on (Thursday, November 3, 2022) to "allow me to call you in the course of the coming week to better explain what the mandate of the Commission entails;" only for her to change tune on calling and instead revert to more-or-less what seemed like a 'Direct Examination' for a Deposition!
I'd been psyched or prepared for a 'Tell-and-Explain' listening-session and thought I was going to be oriented on a dissection of what 'hot airs,' 'wild-goose-chases' or 'piki piki ponkies' vis-a-vis 'matters-and-facts of law' my written-submissions entailed with regards to the Advocates-Complaints-Commission mandates; yet to my surprise I got instead what appeared to be a Q&A Direct-Examination seemingly to corroborate-or-authenticate the written and portal-lodged submissions. It was a deliberate, intentional disorientation to throw an unsuspecting political-legally abused indigent off-wind for which I'd to find my own bearings in two days of reflective inquiry and conclude the above that 'twas an Oral-Deposition to corroborate and authenticate the written.
I stand to be corrected if I'm mistaken and hence, feeling short-changed hereby hold the Commission and Secretary personally-and-collectively liable, responsible and accountable for any misconceptions, damages or torts accruing from the same including generally:
(1.):-Contempt-of-Court or Judicial-Process aka Contempt-in-Procedure, Civil-Contempt which are quasi-criminal in nature and consist-and-refer to conduct of parties abusing the judicial process to the irritation-and-annoyance of their opponents for purposes of interfering with the efficient-and-effective administration of justice by impeding-and-perverting the course of the same through failing to comply with court-orders, directions of tribunals or breaching of judicial-processes undertakings { Osborne's Concise Law Dictionary, P. 102 and Kenyalaw.org }; contrary to the Contempt of Court Act No 46 of 2016.
My conscience rests in the 'benefit of doubt' I rendered the Advocates-Complaints-Commission-and-Secretary in concluding 'twas rather a 'Direct-Examination' Deposition following my reflective-inquiry on their suspicious, unbecoming conducts in the opaque manner they run their operations. Otherwise, I smell a rat in ICC-Indicted mass-murderers and thieves who've taken-over the govt. with a paltry 7.1m votes outta the registered 22m voters in the name of William Ruto behind-the-scenes who's selectively had corrupt economic-crimes cartel cases of his cronies dropped as is demonstrated in the links below ; and is known to be a shrewd poacher of political-parties opponents by bribes and thus the ACC must be bending to his whims in fear of political-repercussions including losing their jobs should they deliver unfavorable judgments or attempt to bring his defendant company AMACO-INSURANCE to book and prosecute them for my KShs 10m+ damages delayed for the past 11yrs 7months."
(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:
13.-(a.):-The Mandate of the Advocates Complaints Commission
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua erroneously averred inter alia that:-
(a1.)-"...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;..."
-I the Indigent-Complainant's Argument:-
The overwhelming evidence knowingly, deliberately and intentionally disregarded-and-discarded by the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary to shield-and-exonerate the renown, corrupt thief-and-murderer, ICC-Indicted executive William Samoei Ruto from prosecution and liabilities clearly demonstrates that my Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 as amended is indeed a prima facie case as is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the documents subpoenaed upon Penninah Ngondi Wawira, Prosecution Counsel in the ODPP ( which the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary knowingly, deliberately and intentionally rushed to evade-and-dismiss their relevance-and-credibility for the same ends above ) to produce containing the signatures, rubber stamps, venues, dates and all of the unscrupulous defendants Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) indicating their breaches-of-contracts they undertook halfway in each respective instance before being persuaded otherwise by the adversely mentioned 'powers-of-darkness' President William Samoei Ruto who owns the AMACO-INSURANCE Company, directly or indirectly by proxies.
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua erroneously averred inter alia that:-
(a2.)-"...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'...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..." ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant's Argument:
-The overwhelming evidence as submitted in my prima facie Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 as
amended and as subpoenaed upon Penninah Ngondi Wawira, Prosecution Counsel in the ODPP to produce the listed documentary evidence containing the signatures, rubber stamps, venues, dates and all of the unscrupulous defendants Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) indicating the half-baked breaches-of-contracts they undertook halfway in each respective instance before being persuaded otherwise in behind-the-scenes-corruption by the adversely mentioned 'powers-of-darkness' President William Samoei Ruto who owns the
AMACO-INSURANCE Company, directly or indirectly by proxies... is water-tightly full-and-bursting under the weight of merit-and-substance with regards to the unscrupulous defendants Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) professional-misconducts' grievous disciplinary offences. The evidences the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary rushed in their discriminative, political-legal abuse, arbitrary-decision to shield-and-exonerate the renown, corrupt thief-and-murderer, ICC-Indicted executive William Samoei Ruto from prosecution and liabilities as is clearly demonstrated in my prima facie Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 as amended.
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua erroneously averred inter alia that:-
(a3.)-"...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..." ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant's Argument:
-I've proved my allegations against the accused unscrupulous defendants Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) beyond reasonable doubt with the listed documentary-evidence subpoenaed upon Penninah Ngondi Wawira, Prosecution Counsel in the ODPP to produce containing the signatures, rubber stamps, venues, dates and all of the unscrupulous defendants Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) indicating the half-baked breaches-of-contracts they undertook halfway in each respective instance...and that the respondent Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary are playing hard to expunge-and-obliterate in the same manner-and-pattern the mentioned suspects-and-accomplices / co-conspirators engaged-in in continuous-violations-of-the-law traffic-accident evidence-destruction / spoliation series-of-crimes political-legal abuse.
(b.):-Proof of Payment
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua erroneously averred inter alia that:-
(b1.)-"...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 on 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'..." ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant's Argument:
-I urge the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary to take note first-and-foremost that the quoted citation '... 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 on that behalf.'... is in the Advocates Act CAP 16 Section 45(1) on 'Agreements with respect to remuneration' and not Section 46 on 'Invalid agreements' as wrongfully-and-misguidedly alleged.
-Secondly, the other citation '..abuse of the court process...' is not with-reference-to their 'asking for proof of payment of legal fees...,' which's a blatant, glaring, intentional misinterpretation of the matter-in-law-and-fact in order to misdirect-and-misguide the proceedings so as to subvert-and-obstruct the due course of the law and arrive at a prejudiced, predetermined, defective conclusion favorably engineered to exonerate the accused unscrupulous Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) and hence effectively shield the corrupt thief-and-murderer, ICC-Indicted executive William Samoei Ruto's AMACO-INSURANCE Company from liabilities-and-prosecution...; but rather that it's in reference to basing the lawful requirement on the mandatory statutory-and-constitutional provisions that the unscrupulous
Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) had in the very first respective instances knowingly, intentionally, deliberately, unlawfully and illegally ignored-and-omitted in their professional misconduct endeavors.
-This is one of the issues I've extensively exhausted in proof beyond reasonable doubt in my Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 originally even before the amendments herein, in a submission entitled 'On ISSUE No. 2 of availing proof of payment of the legal fees to the advocate(s)' and found in the links :-
-A fact which's another pointer to the complacency and/or corruption-behind-the-scenes of the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary as relates to misleading-and-misguiding notions and misinterpretation of matters-and-facts in law, and/or selective bias of cases in abuse-of-authority-and-powers / office as regards never reading submissions let alone analyzing-or-evaluating them.
-I urge the the Appellate Advocates Complaints Commission to review the said submission without the need of repeating the submission herein and come-up with a competent-and-independent assessment. Otherwise, briefly for purposes of clarity,
'The paid legal fees' referred to the KSh 100 paid to Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) for the purposes of 'opening-a-file' office procedure" ; while
-The ref. 'abuse of the court process to ask for proof of legal fees' is with respect to public policy practice that prohibits a party from benefiting from an illegality that they were a party to as was demonstrated when D. Njogu & Company Advocates in 'Njogu & Company Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2016] eKLR)' appealed such a decision, whereby the Court of Appeal reiterated that 'it is an abuse of court process for the advocate to seek the Court's intervention in basing its fees on the Advocates Remuneration Order whose provisions he had in the first instance deliberately ignored.'
-I indeed submitted therein in my prima facie original Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 submission titled 'On ISSUE No. 2 of availing proof of payment of the legal fees to the advocate(s)' that first-and-foremost that 'it's an abuse of the court process to ask for proof of payment of legal-fees since such a transaction's based-on or assumes basis of the requisite Advocates Remuneration Order whose provisions the unscrupulous Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) had in the first instances knowingly, intentionally, deliberately, unlawfully and illegally ignored-and-omitted in their professional misconduct endeavors. The Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretariat c/o OAG couldn't therefore allow
misconceptionally for the accused culprit advocates to maintain proceedings whose objective defectively avoids or circumvents unprofessional, fraudulent, deficient agreements / contracts in order to exonerate themselves from any future binding liabilities as per Sec 45(1) of the Advocates Act which allows advocates and their clients to enter into agreements with respect to the advocate's remuneration.
-Furthermore, in as far as it's a deliberate attempt to misinterpret the law for purposes of misguiding-and-misleading the proceedings for the goal of subverting-and-obstructing the due course-of-the-law and defeat justice so as to shield-and-exonerate the thief and ICC-Indicted executive William Samoei Ruto and his AMACO-INSURANCE Company Ltd, with regards to the prima facie Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 ...The Courts have categorically stated that they have an obligation to interpret the laws in a purposive manner so as to illuminate the spirit of the laws. The High Court declared provisions of law exempting suspension of a state officer prosecuted on corruption and economic crimes are in clear contradiction with Chapter Six which obligates all public officers to behave in a manner that safeguards the dignity and honour of the office and promotes public confidence in the integrity of the office. In both Watitu and Mumo Matemu, the Court of Appeal affirmed that any Kenya has the locus standi in seeking judicial redress on breach of Chapter Six provided the person acts in good faith and for public good.
-It is my case that the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary had no locus standi to circumvent statutory-and-constitutional procedure due to advocates-clients contracts as denoted inSec 45(1) of the Advocates Act CAP 16 and instead ask for evidence based on a law the advocates had obliterated intentionally for the quoted end-goals as envisaged inSection 46(b)(c) of the Advocates Act CAP 16 on invalid-agreements 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 on that behalf.'
-The rest of the pleadings therein are as found in the cited prima facie Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 submissions and can be printed-and-downloaded the provided links herein:
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua erroneously averred inter alia that:-
(b2.)"...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...."
-I the Indigent-Complainant's Argument:
-The 'merit' or 'substance' sourced from evidence of a fee-agreement that the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary misguidedly allege is missing to indicate I indeed instructed the advocates, is again underscored in the argument above in my prima facie original Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 submission titled 'On ISSUE No. 2 of availing proof of payment of the legal fees to the advocate(s)' that first-and-foremost that 'it's an abuse of the court process to ask for proof of payment of legal-fees since such a transaction's based-on or assumes basis of the requisite Advocates Remuneration Order whose provisions the unscrupulous Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) had in the first instances knowingly, intentionally, deliberately, unlawfully and illegally ignored-and-omitted in their professional misconduct endeavors. ; and as explained in precise-and-unequivocal terms in (Kakuta Maimai Hamise v Peris Pesi Tobiko, Independent Electoral and Boundary Commission & Returning Officer Kajiado East Constituency [2017] eKLR)....that "It is desirable that the advocate obtains written authority to act from the client before commencing a suit or representing them in non-contentious business. Under Section 45, Advocates Act, however, parties are free to enter into a remuneration agreement before, after or in the course of any contentious business."
-Otherwise, briefly without needing to repeat the quoted citations in the links above, fee-agreements
which should comply with the law of contract { rd. 'Omulele & Tollo Advocates v Magnum Properties Limited [2016] eKLR' where the court categorically stated that "Under no circumstances will the court imply a fee agreement where it does not comply with Section 45(1), Advocates Act. }... thus signify a contracts for service provision between an advocate and a client and is evidence that the advocate was authorized to act by the client , i.e. in such circumstances as mine of continuous-violations-of-the-law evidence-destruction / spoliations series-of-crimes, the court may imply the existence of the authority to act from the conduct of the parties ; not necessarily by proof-of-fees-payments.
-Conduct of the parties additionally includes correspondences between the parties as discerned 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...facts which can be discerned from a forensic-audit 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.
-The same evidence can also be corroborated or read directly from the letters-in-correspondences I wrote to civil-society-groups and recorded in my blog-sites as given in the links.
-Secondly, I was as I still am utterly shocked that the the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary deliberately, knowingly,
discriminatingly decided to disregard the fundamental doctrine of Common Law called the doctrine of precedent, which is captured in the Latin maxim: "Stare decisis et non quieta movere," meaning: "It is best to adhere to decisions and not to disturb questions put at rest."... contrary to the Evidence Act CAP 80 Sec 60(1)(a) on facts on which courts shall take judicial notice' including all written laws, and all laws, rules and principles, written or unwritten, having the force of law, whether in force or having such force as aforesaid before, at or after the commencement of this Act, in any part of Kenya;
-The Kenyan legal system is descended from the British Common Law system. One of the fundamental doctrines of this Common Law is the doctrine of precedent, which is captured in the Latin maxim: "Stare decisis et non quieta movere," meaning: "It is best to adhere to decisions and not to disturb questions put at rest."
-A precedent is a judgment or decision of a court, normally recorded in a law report, used as an authority for reaching the same decision in a subsequent case. Loosely translated, the doctrine of precedent means that cases involving similar circumstances should be decided by the application of similar principles of law. . The application of this doctrine means, generally, that every court is bound to follow the decisions made by the court above it and, on the whole, appellate courts also have to follow their own decisions.
-The Supreme Court is the highest court in Kenya and its decisions are binding on the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Magistrate's Courts as well as specialized courts and tribunals. The Supreme Court would normally also follow its own decisions unless it can overrule them so that they are set aside and cease to have the force of precedent. The decisions of the Court of Appeal are binding on the High Court and the Magistrates Courts while those of the High Court are binding on the Magistrate's Courts. The decisions of the Magistrate Courts do not in themselves create any binding precedent for any court.
-This doctrine of precedent as properly applied greatly aids in the administration of justice in the following ways:-
(a.)-It ensures certainty in the law. People are able to order their affairs and come to settlements with a certain amount of confidence when the outcome of litigation can be predicted by referring to previous decisions of the courts.
(b.)-It ensures the impartiality and transparency of judges. Generally, a judge is bound to follow the law enunciated in a previous case unless he or she can overrule or distinguish it.
(c.)- It offers opportunities for the development of the law and the evolution of jurisprudence which cannot be provided by Parliament. The courts can more quickly lay down new principles, or extend old principles, to meet novel circumstances
(c.):-Establishment of Advocate-Client Relationship
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua erroneously averred inter alia that:-
-"....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 correspondence between yourself as the client and the advocate discussing matters 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 the existence of instructions / advocate-client relationship between yourself and the advocate(s)..." ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant's Argument:
-Without need of repetition, in circumstances such as mine of continuous-violations-of-the-law evidence-destruction / spoliations series-of-crimes conspiracies, the courts, judicial-proceedings or bodies may establish an advocate-client relationship or imply the existence of the authority to act from the conduct of the parties which includes correspondences between the parties ; not necessarily by proof-of-fees-payments; as demonstrated in 13(b2.) above ; for which the same has been thoroughly exhausted as found in the rest of the pleadings cited therein in my prima facie Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 submissions submission titled 'On ISSUE No. 2 of availing proof of payment of the legal fees to the advocate(s)' and can be printed-and-downloaded in the provided links herein:-
(d.):-Tort of professional Negligence and Liability
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua erroneously averred inter alia that:-
(d1.)-"...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..." ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant's Argument:
-I take this solemn opportunity without need of repetition to state that this issue has been exhaustively addressed above in my Introduction where I sought leave to Amend the same to anchor or ground my Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 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.
-Furthermore I think it'll be prudent to state on behalf of the oppressed and tax-overburdened sovereign public / laity that the fact that the Commission doesn't deal with tort ain't mentioned anywhere neither in Section 53 of the Advocates Act or in the mission statements or forwards of the Advocates Complaints Commission.
-I only came across the fact by mere chance in the Office of the Attorney General's Facebook page last updated around 2020.
-The Advocates Complaints Commission hence was as still is at fault for failing to categorically have the same highlighted either in their mission statements or forwards for purposes of informing the public at large.
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua erroneously averred inter alia that:-
(d2.)-"...Further, your allegation has not been backed by any evidence authorizing us to inquire deeper into the complaint, thus lacking 'substance'..." ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant's Argument:
-This is where the intentional, deliberate, misdirection-and-misleading of the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary comes-in with regards to behind-the-scenes corruption as concerns the world-renown impunity of the Office of the Attorney General of Kenya's specialization to always shield-and-exonerate the corrupt-executive and his economy-cartels cronies from prosecution ; as was demonstrated in the US sanctioning of the former AG Amos Wako, his wife and son.
-This is especially so cause the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary's deficient allegation comes in the backdrop of when I'd jus' sent a letter on Thursday, Nov 17th 2022 at 4:10 PM to the Prosecution Counsel Peninnah Ngondi Wawira in the ODPP at penwawira@gmail.com, among others including the ACC-Secretary Leah M Mutua at leah.mutua@ag.go.ke , the Advocates Complaints Commission at acc@ag.go.ke, the Attorney General Justin Muturi at communications@ag.go.ke and civil-society-groups at large ; where the subject-matter ( Subject:-Prosecution Counsel Peninnah Ngondi Wawira in the ODPP Plea To Avail by Office-Messenger or Otherwise The Three Hard-Copy Documentary Evidences To The Advocates Complaints Commission Secretary Senior State Counsel.Leah M Mutua ) addressed squarely your unsubstantiated allegations of... 'evidence authorizing us to inquire deeper into the complaint, thus lacking 'substance'..." ; -Did the Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary liaise with the Prosecution Counsel Peninnah Ngondi Wawira in the ODPP to corroborate-and-verify the same? Nope. I can only read malice in the rush-and-shoddy manner you sped shifting goal-posts to arbitrarily deliver the discriminating, political-legal abuse decision on the following day Friday Nov 18th 2022 at 4:02 PM "{ Subject: Decision On ACC COMPLAINT- CC/PE/AUG/22/36 }...Good afternoon, Kindly find attached our response to your complaint lodged with the Advocates Complaints Commission. Yours Faithfully, }..."...devoid of the crucial documentary evidence to shield-and-exonerate the corrupt thief and ICC-Indicted executive Ruto's-AMACO INSURANCE from prosecution. Links of the same are as provided below:-
(e.):- Inconclusive, Defective, Deficient, Prejudiced, Discriminative, Arbitrary, Political-Legal Abuse Conclusion
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua erroneously averred inter alia 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..." ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant's 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 whocorruptly knowingly-and-intentionally failed, neglected and refused to cooperate with my prayers to liaise with the Prosecution Counsel Peninnah Ngondi Wawira in the ODPP at penwawira@gmail.com (for whom I've had to amend the prima facie Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 herein to subpoena her to produce the documentary evidences you needed) on the background of the letter I'd sent her on Thursday, Nov 17th 2022 at 4:10 PM entitled ( Subject:-Prosecution Counsel Peninnah Ngondi Wawira in the ODPP Plea To Avail by Office-Messenger or Otherwise The Three Hard-Copy Documentary Evidences To The Advocates Complaints Commission Secretary Senior State Counsel.Leah M Mutua ) before you rushed to arbitrarily-decide to close the file on the very following day seeing that the water-tight evidence had arrived... -The Respondent Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary failed, neglected and refused to cooperate in disseminating the caselaw / precedent evidence authorities I'd submitted ;
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua erroneously averred inter alia that:-
(e2.)-"...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..." ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant's Argument:
-Issue dealt with extensively in 13(b2) above and elsewhere without need for repetition.
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua erroneously averred inter alia that:-
(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..."
-I the Indigent-Complainant's Argument:
-I've duly done so as explained in my Introduction where I sought leave to Amend the original Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 and anchor or ground it rather on Breach-of-Contract and not Tort pursuant to the provisions of Order 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 as read together with Section 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code ; for which I then proceeded forth to appeal the same as amended in my Section (D) reading ''The Appeal."
-The Advocates Complaints Commission and it's Secretary Senior State Counsel Leah M Mutua erroneously averred inter alia that:-
(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..." ;
-I the Indigent-Complainant's Argument:
I submit that the Advocates Complaints Commission is a 'Quasi-judicial' entity as far as its administrative-mandates go which without need of repetition I've demonstrated in my Submissions from Paragraph 26-30 indicating it operates as a department in the Office of the Attorney General and Department of Justice whereby it's tasked with the mandate of enhancing the rule of law and administration of justice, as a regulator of the legal-profession in Kenya and for which it's partly responsible for the realization of the National Vision 2030 by administering justice and professional discipline in the practice of law ;
-The same is reflected in the Evidence Act CAP 80 Sec 3 on Interpretation which defines "court" as including all judges and magistrates, and persons, except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence; as well as Sec 34 (2)(a) CAP 80 which defines the expression "judicial proceeding" shall be deemed to include any proceeding in which evidence is taken by a person authorized by law to take that evidence on oath; and
-Practically, the same is self-evident in the conduct-and-operations of the Advocates Complaints Commission which so far has basically been replicating the court procedures right from the preliminary stage upon receipt of my Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 and the reason why we've gone through the give-and-take submissions stage up to the tele-conversation / direct-examination / deposition stage, the decision / ruling / judgement stage and now the Appeal stage. The Advocates Complaints Commission and its Secretary are thus evidently misleading-and-misguiding, shoddy-and-shaddy in their interpretation of the dictates of running the Commission.
(D.):- The Amended-Complaint-No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36-with reference to-CAJ/ATI/ACC/001/44/23-MW
14.-The instant Amended-Complaint-No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36-with reference to-CAJ/ATI/ACC/001/44/23-MW examines the constitutionality of the legal regime governing the Advocates Complaints Commission process that culminated in the Mis-informed, Defective and Prejudiced Decision by the Advocates Complaints Commission dated the Friday 18th November, 2022 At 4:02 PM and delivered on its behalf by the Secretary sitting in their Headquarters at Cooperative Building , 20th Floor, Nairobi, in Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 of I the Indigent-Complainant Erick Otieno Mango Versus Owade & Co. Advocates and Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) where the Advocates Complaints Commission inadvertently PROCEEDED TO PREMATURELY CLOSE THE FILE Complaint No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36 discriminatively as per the five-issues cited in their response of the PDF-Letter dated Fri, Nov 18 at 4:02 PM including:-
(a.):-The Mandate of the Advocates Complaints Commission ;
(b.):-Proof of Payment ;
(c.):-Establishment of Advocate-Client Relationship ;
(d.):-Tort of professional Negligence and Liability ;
(e.):-DEFECTIVE CONCLUSION ;
15.-In which said counterclaim I the Indigent-Complainant herein seeks against the Respondent-Advocates Complaints Commission prosecution of my Amended-Complaint-No.-CC/PE/AUG/22/36-with reference to-CAJ/ATI/ACC/001/44/23-MW before the Commission on Administrative Justice | Office of the Ombudsman for Breach-of-Contract with regards to continuous-violations-of-the-law traffic-accident evidence-destruction / spoliation series-of-crimes political-legal abuses involving Owade & Co. Advocates in cahoots with Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) conjunctively with accomplices and co-conspirators including Migori Police Station Traffic Police and Kihara-Construction, plus two ex-Chiefs of Suna East Amara and Odero-and-his-son, plus Peter-and Pamela Mango the dysfunctional, compulsive-neurotic, murderous sex-perverts I've estranged pending due process... as detailed in the attached blog-site authorities links memos-letter correspondences to civil-society-groups and concerned authorities ;
16.-Both unscrupulous Owade & Co. Advocates plus Mudeyi Okumu & Company Advocates ( aka Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates ) professional misconducts' aggravated, disciplinary-offences' continuous-violations-of-the-law, series-of-crimes Breaches-of-Contract in each both different instances respectively are evident in their failures to meet the strict statutory-and-constitutional advocate-client provision-thresholds prerequisites set by law ( contrary to what lawyers of repute would do ) ; and their consequential acts-and-omissions contrary to the Advocates Act Cap 16 and LSK Act Cap 18 which violated-and-infringed my constitutional-rights and fundamental-freedoms ( as regards the Practice and Procedure Rules for enforcement of the Bill of Rights under Article 22(3) as read with Article 23 and Article 165 (3) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya concerning jurisdictions to enforce rights and fundamental freedoms that have been denied, violated, infringed or threatened ; aka Mutunga Rules intending to provide a framework which facilitates access to justice for all persons seeking to enforce such provisions ) prejudiced my case and gave rise to their liabilities in Breach-of-Contract out of the losses I've incurred and continue to incur due to their statutory-and-constitutional faults and short-comings which are the effective causes of my injuries, harms and losses ; and for which I file claims for action for damages...
as well as costs of the suit
