Share
In Re: Rules of Court; In Re: Application by Mr. Maharaj Krishen Bhandari for enrlment as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Kenya (No Case No.) [1945] EACA 68 (1 January 1945)
- Citation
- [1945] EACA 68
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Sheridan CJ
- Case number
- No Case No.
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Sheridan CJ
- Case number
- No Case No.
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the Rules of Court (Legal Practitioners) require only continuous residence for six months prior to application, not that such residence be as a barrister. Since the applicant has resided in the Colony for fifteen years and has provided satisfactory testimonials, he meets the requirements for enrolment. Upon payment of the prescribed fee and signing the Roll, he is entitled to be admitted to practise as an advocate.
Court disposition
Application granted.
Orders
- Upon payment of the prescribed fee and signing the Roll, Mr. Bhandari may be admitted to practise as an advocate of the Supreme Court of Kenya.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mr. Maharaj Krishen Bhandari
Applicant03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Enrolment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has satisfied the continuous residence requirement under rule 3 of the Rules of Court (Legal Practitioners) for enrolment as an advocate.
- 02
Whether the six-month residence must be as a barrister or merely as a resident.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant has been a resident of the Colony for the last fifteen years and has provided satisfactory testimonials as to his character. He contends that the Rules do not require the six-month residence to be as a barrister, only that he be qualified and resident.
- Respondent
- No respondent appeared or submitted arguments in opposition to the application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 3, Rules of Court (Legal Practitioners) 1926
Continuous residence in the Colony or Protectorate for not less than six months prior to application is sufficient for enrolment as an advocate, provided other requirements are met.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the Rules of Court (Legal Practitioners) require only continuous residence for six months prior to application, not that such residence be as a barrister. Since the applicant has resided in the Colony for fifteen years and has provided satisfactory testimonials, he meets the requirements for enrolment. Upon payment of the prescribed fee and signing the Roll, he is entitled to be admitted to practise as an advocate.
Court disposition
Application granted.
- Upon payment of the prescribed fee and signing the Roll, Mr. Bhandari may be admitted to practise as an advocate of the Supreme Court of Kenya.
Source and reliance status
East African Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Appeal
Judgment
ORIGINAL CIVIL
Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J.
In the matter of the Rules of Court (Legal Practitioners) 1926
In the matter of an application by MR. MAHARAJ KRISHEN BHANDARI for enrolment as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Kenya
Legal practitioner—Enrolment—Period of residence—Rules of Court (Legal Practitioners)
ORDER.-The applicant, Mr. Maharaj Krishen Bhandari, who was called to the English Bar on the 26th January, 1945, has applied to be admitted as an advocate under the Rules of Court (Legal Practitioners).
He has furnished testimonials as to his character, which are satisfactory. The one question for decision on the application is whether, under rule 3, he has continuously resided in the Colony or Protectorate for a period of not less than six months prior to his application.
He has been a resident of the Colony for the last fifteen years.
The relevant part of the rule reads: $\rightarrow$
"Any barrister, upon producing to the Chief Justice satisfactory proof of his qualifications and such testimonials as to his character as the Chief Justice may require, and upon satisfying the Chief Justice that he has continuously resided in the Colony or Protectorate of Kenya for a period of not less than six months . . . and upon payment of the fee prescribed in the Schedule to this Part and upon signing the Roll of the Supreme Court, shall be admitted to practise in the Supreme Court and the Courts subordinate thereto. other than Subordinate Native Courts."
In the absence of any qualifying words to the effect that the applicant's residence of six months or more prior to his application must be as a barrister, I find that being qualified as prescribed by the Rules and his testimonials being satisfactory, mere residence is sufficient to entitle him to be admitted to practise on his complying with the further requisites of paying the prescribed fee and signing the Roll.
On complying with these requisites, Mr. Bhandari may be admitted to practise as an advocate.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.