Blow To Ahmednasir’s Law Firm Clients As Supreme Court Reiterates The Ban Still Effective

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a case from the law firm of Ahmednasir Abdullahi saying that the ban they issued last year is still in effect.

The judges declined to hear a lawyer from the firm of Abdullahi’s law saying that the ban against the Senior Counsel and his legal team from appearing before it is still effective.

Last year in January all judges of the Supreme Court recused themselves from hearing any case involving the firm or its representatives.

Chief Justice Martha Koome the president of the court reiterated to the lawyer who had appeared before them that the ban remains effective.

She emphasized that no members of the firm could proceed in representing clients before the Supreme Court unless the ban is lifted.

“We made a decision last year, January, where all the judges of this court recused themselves from hearing any matter from the firm of Ahmednasir or his employees or any other person holding brief for the firm. The reasons for recusal were cited in that matter. So when the matter was called out this morning, we noted that the firm of Ahmednasir is still on record,” Koome said.

The court has now directed the client-petitioner to indicate how she wished her case to proceed and be determined, given the constraints imposed by the ban.

“We direct the Registrar to issue a notice to the petitioner to appear within 14 days to indicate how she wishes to proceed with the matter in the event that she has not dealt with presentation the order of stay issued will stand vacated automatically,”court directed.

Client’s case

Lawyer Asli Osman on Tuesday pleaded with the apex court to allow the law firm to argue a landmark case on whether children born out of wedlock in Muslim set-ups should be allowed to inherit from their fathers.

However, Chief Justice Martha Koome, her deputy Philomena Mwilu, Justices Mohamed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Isaac Lenaola, Njoki Ndung’u and William Ouko unanimously rejected Osman’s plea.

In a ruling read by Justice Koome, the seven judges declared that if Fatuma fails to appear within the time limit, the orders issued stopping Rose Faith Mwawasi and Judith Malele Mwawasi from demanding part of the wealth left by Mombasa tycoon Salim Juma Hakeem will lapse.

Fatuma moved to the Supreme Court after Court of Appeal Judges Gatembu Kairu, Pauline Nyamweya and George Odunga unanimously agreed that despite religion abhorring sex before marriage, it is unfair to sideline children born from such escapades when their fathers die.

Islamic law dictates that where a child has been born out of a marriage, he or she can only inherit from the mother and not the father.

However, Justices Kairu, Nyamweya and Odunga were of the view that the rights of a child supersede one’s marital status.

According to them, there is no rational justification to prove that a child born in a marriage has a higher claim to wealth than one who is born outside matrimony.

“To deny children born out of wedlock the benefit which accrues to other children born in wedlock on the basis of the alleged “sins” committed by their parents, in our view cannot be justified since it would mean that this court would be adopting “hurtful discrimination and stereotypical response” to a clear case of discrimination,” ruled the bench headed by Justice Kairu.

“It is our view that culture that is harmful to a child in the sense that denies such a child his or her otherwise right to parental care and protection on the ground of marital status of the father and the mother cannot be countenanced,” the Judges ruled

At the heart of the case was the wealth left by Mombasa tycoon Salim Juma Hakeem.  Juma died without a will on February 23, 2015 in Tanzania.