Wakilii

In Re - of an Advocate; In Re - of the Advocates Ordinance (Civil Application No. 6 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 311 · 1955 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council from a decision of the Court of Appeal upholding a finding of professional misconduct
Decision
Conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council granted under section 3(b) of the East African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council, 1951

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court held that the applicant had no civil right to reappointment as a resident magistrate since such office is held at the pleasure of the Crown, and any undertaking by the Chief Secretary could not bind the Crown. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal as of right under section 3(a) failed. However, the Court granted conditional leave to appeal under section 3(b), finding that the questions raised—particularly the degree of proof required for professional misconduct, the authority of the Advocates' Committee, and the Supreme Court's functions—were of great general and public importance and ought to be submitted to the Privy Council.

Outcome

Conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council granted under section 3(b) of the East African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council, 1951

Facts

The applicant, an advocate, was found by the Supreme Court of Kenya to have committed professional misconduct and was admonished. Prior to the complaint, he had been appointed a resident magistrate at a salary of £1,350 per annum, with effect from 1 January 1955. Following the complaint, he resigned his appointment by arrangement with the Chief Secretary on the understanding that he would be reappointed if the complaint were dismissed. The applicant applied for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council, arguing either as of right under section 3(a) on the basis that his civil right to reappointment exceeded £500 in value, or alternatively with leave under section 3(b) on the grounds that the appeal raised questions of great general and public importance.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had a civil right exceeding £500 in value to appeal as of right under section 3(a) of the East African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council, 1951.
  2. Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 3(b) on grounds that the questions involved were of great general or public importance.
  3. Whether the degree of proof required to sustain a finding of professional misconduct against an advocate is a matter of great general importance.
  4. Whether the extent of the authority of the Advocates' Committee and the scope of the Supreme Court's functions in considering its report are matters of public importance.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal as of right under section 3(a) dismissed.
  • Application for conditional leave to appeal under section 3(b) granted.

Rules and key headnotes

Crown Employment — Appointment at Pleasure — No Legal Right to Reappointment
A resident magistrate holds office at the pleasure of the Crown, and an applicant has no legal right to be reappointed to such office. An undertaking by the Chief Secretary cannot bind the Crown and limit its power not to reappoint.
Appeal to Privy Council — Civil Right Exceeding £500 — Section 3(a)
Where an applicant has no legal right to reappointment to a Crown office held at pleasure, the proposed appeal does not involve any civil right, still less any civil right of a value in excess of £500, and section 3(a) of the East African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council, 1951, does not apply.
Appeal to Privy Council — Leave Under Section 3(b) — Great General or Public Importance
The question of the degree of proof required to sustain a finding of professional misconduct against an advocate is a matter of great general importance within section 3(b) of the East African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council, 1951, as the decision would apply generally to other professional bodies subject to disciplinary action.
Appeal to Privy Council — Discretion Under Section 3(b) — 'Or Otherwise'
The words 'or otherwise' in section 3(b) of the East African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council, 1951, are intended to give the court a wide discretion when granting leave, provided it is satisfied that the points raised ought to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council for decision.
Professional Discipline — Questions of Public Importance
Questions concerning the powers of an Advocates' Committee and of the Supreme Court over a body of professional men who enjoy special privileges and have special responsibilities towards the public are matters of public importance justifying leave to appeal.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Advocates Ordinance 1949
  • East African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council 1951 s.3(a)
  • East African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council 1951 s.3(b)

Cases cited (4)

  • Terrell v Secretary of State for the Colonies (1953) 2 QB 482
  • Meghji Lakhamshi & Bros v Furniture Workshops (1954) 1 AE 273
  • Churchwardens of the Parish of St George v May (14 ER 918)
  • La Citi de Montreal v Les Ecclesiastiques du Seminaire de St Sulspice de Montreal (1889) 14 AC 660

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

In Re - of an Advocate; In Re - of the Advocates Ordinance (Civil Application No. 6 of 1955) [1955] EACA 311 (1 January 1955)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.