.jpg)
The Supreme Court has informed the High Court that it lacks Jurisdiction to review the decision it made to ban Senior Counsel Ahmednassir Abdullahi from appearing before the Apex Court.
In opposing a case filed by the Law Society of Kenya, the Supreme Court through advocates Ochieng Oduol and Kamau Karori said the High Court does not have jurisdiction over the Apex Court.
Whether the decision is administrative or pretrial, the advocates told Justice Chacha Mwita that it cannot be subjected to a constitutional petition in the High Court as has been done by the LSK.
Oduol told the court that once the Supreme Court has decided on a particular issue and made an order or decision, it can not be supervised by the High Court.
“It will be a travesty of the order of things that a decision administrative or otherwise is made in the Supreme Court and one rushes to the High Court to interrogate that particular decision,” he said.
The High Court, he said, only has supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.
“This court has no jurisdiction. The petition is a non-stata. The reliefs, and prayers being sought show they are a mischief in which petitioner seeks this court to engage in,” he said
In closing, Oduol urged the court to uphold the preliminary objection for lack of jurisdiction and the absolute immunity the Judges enjoy from proceedings.
In a swift rejoinder, Isaa Mansour representing Ahmednassir and members of his firm said the Judiciary doesn't enjoy absolute immunity as contended by Oduol and that such a concept is subject to checks and balances.
“Judicial immunity cannot be used where judiciary intends to use it as a shield from accountability ...this was a decision that affected the rights of the advocates,” he said
“What Karori and Oduol are saying is that regardless of what the Supreme Court or member of judiciary does there is absolute immunity even in matters done in bad faith...that's not what the constitution advocates for,” he added.