Chief Registrar of Titles Commissioner for Land Regisration v M s. Sudaplast Industries (Civil Appeal 6 of 1998)

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Holding

Counsel for the respondent conceded he held no valid practising certificate when he filed Misc. Application No. 93/95, rendering that application and all subsequent proceedings (including No. 266/95) a nullity. The court agreed and allowed the appeal, quashing the proceedings and setting aside the orders made thereunder. Because the nullity arose from the fault of respondent's counsel, who acted despite knowing he had no practising certificate, the court ordered that counsel personally pay the costs of the High Court proceedings and of the appeal.

Facts

When the appeal came up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Kulumba-Kiingi, conceded that he did not hold a valid practising certificate when he filed Misc. Application No. 93/95 in the High Court. As a consequence, that application and all subsequent proceedings, including No. 266/95, were a nullity, and there was no competent appeal before the court. The Commissioner for Civil Litigation, appearing for the appellant, agreed that the proceedings were a nullity and should be quashed and the orders set aside, but contended that the appellant should recover costs because it was respondent's counsel who filed the proceedings knowing he had no practising certificate.

Issues

1. Whether proceedings filed by counsel who did not hold a valid practising certificate were a nullity.
2. Who should bear the costs of proceedings rendered a nullity by counsel's lack of a valid practising certificate.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Proceedings in Misc. Application No. 93/95 and No. 266/95 quashed and orders made thereunder set aside.
• Costs of the proceedings awarded to the appellant.
• Counsel for the respondent to personally pay the costs of the High Court proceedings and of this appeal.

Key headnotes