Court Rejects Former Nairobi Lawyer’s Bid to Block KSh11.28 Million Property Attachment

Justice Tabitha Ouya rules that striking an advocate off the Roll does not erase liability for earlier professional misconduct. John Wacira Wambugu had challenged disciplinary proceedings arising from a dispute over more than KSh54 million held in trust.

A lawyer cannot escape professional accountability simply because another disciplinary case has already struck his name off the Roll, the High Court has ruled.

Justice Tabitha Ouya dismissed John Wacira Wambugu’s application to quash proceedings before the Law Society of Kenya’s Disciplinary Tribunal.

The dispute centres on approximately KSh11.28 million that Patrick Mweu Musimba sought to recover.

Wambugu argued that the Tribunal lost jurisdiction after striking him off the Roll on July 20, 2020.

He wanted the court to invalidate its subsequent orders and prohibit further enforcement against his property.

But in a judgement delivered on October 15, 2026, the court rejected that argument.

It held that removal from the Roll does not extinguish liability for misconduct allegedly committed during active practice.

KSh54 Million Dispute

The dispute began with a complaint Musimba filed against Wambugu on May 2, 2019.

He alleged that the lawyer had failed to release or properly account for approximately KSh54.5 million held in trust.

According to Musimba’s affidavit, he demanded the money in October 2018.

Wambugu allegedly refused, citing ongoing state investigations before offering explanations concerning the funds.

Musimba maintained that the money had allegedly been invested, spent, or retained as legal fees.

He contended that Wambugu failed to provide satisfactory accounts, prompting disciplinary proceedings.

The allegations raised serious questions about the handling of client funds.

However, the present judgement principally addressed jurisdiction, rather than conducting a fresh trial of every disputed transaction.

On October 12, 2020, the Tribunal ordered Wambugu to deposit KSh11,279,286 with the LSK within 30 days.

He challenged that directive through judicial review proceedings and obtained a conditional stay.

The earlier judicial review application was dismissed for want of prosecution on October 4, 2021.

Musimba subsequently pursued enforcement against Wambugu’s property.

On February 3, 2025, the Tribunal partially allowed Musimba’s application for enforcement.

Warrants issued on March 5, 2025, authorised attachment of movable and immovable property to recover approximately KSh11.28 million.

Wambugu returned to the High Court, seeking to invalidate the ruling and stop further enforcement.

Jurisdiction Survives

At the heart of the dispute lay a crucial question: could an advocate escape disciplinary proceedings after removal from the Roll?

Wambugu argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because he ceased being an advocate in July 2020.

The complaint, however, concerned alleged misconduct dating from 2018 and 2019.

Justice Ouya relied on Republic v Disciplinary Tribunal & Another, Ex Parte David Ronald Ngala Odhoch [2019] KEHC 709 (KLR).

That decision rejected an advocate’s attempt to avoid disciplinary proceedings over conduct committed during active practice.

The judge agreed that subsequent removal from the Roll could not erase potential liability for earlier professional misconduct.

The judgement warned that granting such immunity would “create an unconscionable loophole, defeat public policy, and encourage impunity.”

The reasoning was straightforward: professional accountability cannot depend solely on whether an advocate remains licensed when a complaint reaches determination.

The court therefore found that the Tribunal retained statutory authority to address the alleged misconduct.

Participation Counts

The judge also rejected Wambugu’s attempt to challenge jurisdiction after extensive participation in the disciplinary proceedings.

Musimba argued that Wambugu had entered a plea, filed pleadings, and defended the complaint before challenging the Tribunal’s authority.

He maintained that the objection came only after an unfavourable ruling.

Justice Ouya agreed that litigants should not participate in proceedings and attack jurisdiction only after losing.

The judgement said parties could not be permitted to “play fast and loose with the judicial or quasi-judicial process.”

The court relied on Serafin Tijam v Magdaleno Sibonghanoy, a Philippine Supreme Court decision criticising delayed jurisdictional objections.

The judge concluded that Wambugu was estopped, in the circumstances, from challenging jurisdiction at that late stage.

The finding does not mean participation can cure every genuine absence of jurisdiction.

Rather, the court considered Wambugu’s conduct alongside its finding that the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction over the alleged misconduct.

Application Dismissed

Wambugu sought certiorari to quash the Tribunal’s ruling and prohibition against further enforcement. The court found that he had failed to establish grounds for either remedy.

Justice Ouya relied on Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic & Umoja Consultants Limited [2002] eKLR, which limits judicial review to examining the legality of decision-making.

The court also cited Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300. That decision identifies illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety as grounds for judicial review.

The judge found no sufficient evidence of procedural unfairness, irrationality, or unlawful exercise of authority.

He consequently characterised the application as “a disguised appeal against an unfavorable outcome.”

The court dismissed Wambugu’s motion dated October 14, 2025, and awarded costs to Musimba.

The judgement noted that Musimba had separately sought adoption of the Tribunal’s ruling as a High Court decree.

READ ALSO: Court Rejects Mombasa Lawyer’s Bid as KSh960,000 Loan Explodes to KSh11.59 Million

That application remained pending according to the record.

The ruling ultimately reinforces a fundamental principle: professional accountability does not disappear when an advocate loses practising status.

For clients seeking answers over money entrusted to lawyers, the decision clarifies the Tribunal’s continuing disciplinary authority.

However, the jurisdictional ruling should not be mistaken for a fresh determination of every underlying financial allegation.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.