The evaluation of legal and institutiona, framework for advocate displinary process in Kenya under the new constitution 2010.
Wamute, Isaac G
The study aimed at investigating the constitutionality of the legal profession regulatory
framework in Kenya. This was necessitated by the fact that the existing framework precedents
the Kenyan Constitution 2010 while the same is based on Statutes which are subsidiary to the
Constitution. The study therefore gives structural analysis of the Advocate Disciplinary
processes rising deficiencies in the said system and showing how these deficiencies make the
existing framework unconstitutional.
The research is based on the theory of Constitutional supremacy as defined by the Supreme
Court of United State of America in the famous case of Marbury v Madison and the theory of
public interest. The research is also guided by the concept of professional regulation. This
concept is as old as the profession itself. Despite the concept being around for over a decade,
Kenya does not seem to have gotten it right despite several amendments to the existing
framework. The research demonstrate that it is not just not getting it right but the now with the
new Constitution 2010 the existing framework risk being declared unconstitutional.
A descriptive research design was used, however the research heavily did the comparative
analysis. In the analysis the research looked at other jurisdictions and how they have managed to
deal with deficiencies highlighted in the current framework. From the analysis several
recommendations were given if the current framework was to be rescued. The recommendations
may look at a paradigm shift from the current regime but it is necessary if the profession was to
be effectively regulated.
University of Nairobi
Type of publication|
Nairobi - University of Nairobi
Added to C-A: 2022-06-22;11:22:33|
© Connecting-Africa 2004-2022 | Last update: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 |