The Supreme Court of Kenya has struck out an application seeking to review its decision to bar senior counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi and his law firm from appearing before the court.
The ruling, delivered on Friday, March 14, reaffirmed the court’s earlier decision to recuse itself from cases involving Ahmednasir or his associates, citing a campaign by the lawyer to "scandalise, ridicule, and denigrate" the judiciary.
The case stems from a January 2024 communication by the Supreme Court, which accused Ahmednasir of conducting a relentless media campaign against the court. Following this, the court issued an order on January 23, 2024, recusing all seven judges from hearing cases involving Ahmednasir or his firm, Ahmednasir Abdullahi Advocates LLP.
A similar order was issued on January 25, 2025, in another case where the firm represented an appellant.
In his application, Julius Miiri sought to have the recusal orders reviewed and set aside. He argued that they unfairly affected other lawyers in Ahmednasir’s firm and their clients. Miiri contended that the orders were disproportionate and violated the rights of the firm’s partners and associates, who were not directly involved in the alleged misconduct.
He also argued that the court had inherent jurisdiction to review its decisions to ensure justice was served.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the application, stating that it was procedurally flawed and that Miiri lacked the legal standing to bring the case. The court noted that the application was not anchored in any specific appeal or petition, as required by the Supreme Court Rules.
"The filing of the miscellaneous application before us is procedurally flawed," the court ruled, adding that the applicant was neither a party to the original proceedings nor had he sought to be enjoined in them.
The court further noted that the partners and associates of Ahmednasir Abdullahi Advocates LLP, who were directly affected by the recusal orders, had not themselves filed an application seeking a review. Their letter to the court, highlighting procedural flaws, was considered “mere correspondence” rather than a formal pleading.
The court also stressed that the recusal orders were specific to cases where Ahmednasir or his firm were involved and did not bar the firm’s lawyers from appearing in other matters. "The recusal order only relates to them when they are representing the firm of the 2nd respondent in court," the ruling stated.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has taken a firm stance against Ahmednassir. In January 2024, the court publicly rebuked the lawyer for his media campaigns, which it said aimed to undermine the judiciary’s integrity. The court’s decision to recuse itself from cases involving Ahmednassir was seen as an unprecedented move and has raised significant debate among the legal community.
