Court clears way for challenge to Senior Counsel titles awarded since 2013
Eliud Karanja Matindi is challenging four batches of appointments made in June 2013, July 2020, August 2022 and December 2025, involving 97 advocates.
The High Court has dismissed a preliminary objection seeking to stop a petition challenging the conferment of Senior Counsel titles on 97 advocates between 2013 and 2025, allowing the case to proceed to a full hearing.
Justice Gregory Mutai ruled that the petition raises substantive constitutional questions, including whether the conferment process complied with requirements for transparency, public participation and accountability, and whether the committee responsible for recommending the latest recipients was legally constituted.
The petition was filed by Eliud Karanja Matindi, who wants the court to declare the conferment of Senior Counsel titles to the affected advocates unconstitutional, null and void. He also wants the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary directed to remove their names from the Roll of Senior Counsel.
In his ruling dated October 19, 2026, Justice Mutai dismissed objections filed by the Committee on Senior Counsel and the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), which argued that the petition was incompetent and that the court lacked jurisdiction to determine it.
The judge rejected the argument that the committee's recommendations were merely advisory and therefore beyond judicial scrutiny.
“Under section 17 of the Advocates Act, by contrast, the President confers the rank upon the names submitted by the Committee through the Chief Justice,” Justice Mutai stated.
Latest Stories
- Floods could displace 874,000 people in Somalia over next three months, IOM warns
- Traffic alert: Major Nairobi roads to close for Standard Chartered Marathon
- Sudan conflict: Peace efforts resume to end ‘drone war’ fuelling humanitarian crisis
- Kenya’s Coast seeks more Ugandan tourists through joint holiday packages
He added that the recommendation was “the statutory gateway without which there can be no conferment,” making it subject to judicial scrutiny.
Matindi is challenging four batches of appointments made in June 2013, July 2020, August 2022 and December 2025, involving 97 advocates.
He argues that the process violated Articles 10 and 232 of the Constitution, which provide for national values and principles of governance, including transparency, accountability and good governance.
He further contends that the 2011 rules governing the conferment of the rank expired in January 2024, meaning the committee lacked a legal basis to recommend the 54 advocates awarded the title in December 2025.
The respondents, however, maintained that the rules remained in force following amendments introduced through the Finance Act, 2023.
Justice Mutai said the legal status of the rules would require detailed arguments during the substantive hearing.
“The effect of those decisions, and of any legislation enacted since, will fall for determination at the hearing of the Petition,” he ruled.
The court also rejected arguments that Matindi lacked the standing to bring the case because he was not an advocate or a member of the Law Society of Kenya.
The judge held that whether the petition was sufficiently supported by evidence was a matter for the full hearing, rather than a preliminary objection.
On claims that the case had been filed too late, Justice Mutai said constitutional claims were not generally subject to limitation, although delay and prejudice could be considered depending on the circumstances.
He noted that the challenge to the 2025 conferment had been filed within weeks, while the challenges to earlier awards would require further consideration.
The judge also declined Matindi's request to strike out filings by lawyers representing the committee and the Law Society over alleged breach of court orders restricting public entities from engaging private advocates.
The petition will now proceed to a full hearing.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.