Supreme Court of Kenya has dismissed an application seeking to review its decision to bar senior counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi and his law firm from appearing before the court.
In a ruling delivered on Friday, March 14, the court upheld its earlier stance, maintaining that all seven judges would recuse themselves from cases involving Ahmednasir or his firm. The decision was based on what the court described as a persistent campaign by the lawyer to “scandalize, ridicule, and denigrate” the judiciary.
The matter traces back to a January 2024 directive in which the Supreme Court accused Ahmednasir of waging a sustained media offensive against the court. This led to an order on January 23, 2024, formally barring him and his firm, Ahmednasir Abdullahi Advocates LLP, from appearing before the bench.
A similar order was issued on January 25, 2025, in another case where the firm represented an appellant.
In his application, Julius Miiri sought a review and reversal of the recusal orders, arguing that they unfairly impacted other lawyers at Ahmednasir’s firm, as well as their clients. He maintained that the orders were excessive and unjustly infringed on the rights of the firm’s partners and associates, who had no direct involvement in the alleged misconduct.
Miiri further asserted that the Supreme Court had the inherent jurisdiction to review its own decisions to uphold the principles of justice.
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 clarified that its recusal orders applied specifically to cases where Ahmednasir or his law firm was involved, but did not prevent the firm’s lawyers from representing clients in unrelated matters. “The recusal order only applies 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 strong stance against Ahmednasir. In January 2024, the court openly criticized the lawyer for what it described as a media campaign aimed at discrediting the judiciary. The decision to recuse all seven judges from cases involving Ahmednasir was an unprecedented step, sparking widespread debate within the legal fraternity.