Some bit of news that may have escaped your ear on this rather eventful day is that the appellant one Mr. Mutai has withdrawn the appeal against the decision to allow Ekuru on the ballot. It seems that is not only harvesting time for lawyers only but for cheeky litigants too.
It seems that Mutai’s palms were (allegedly) greased to the tune of Kshs. 7m. This is according to his lawyer Nelson Havi who apparently doesnt keep client information confidential. But it seems Mr. Havi isnt taking it too well. We’ll see what will transpire at the court of appeal tomorrow.[ATTACH=full]133294[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]133295[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]133296[/ATTACH]
The same lawyer who is violating lawyer-client confidentiality is the same one who recently claimed that he wants to run for the presidency in LSK!
If Havi, the Jakuon sycophant, was so keen on seeing the matter through, why did he not file it on his own behalf or through another party or better still as a fresh application?
Second, assuming the messages are valid, Mutai has grounds to report Havi to the Advocates Complaints Commission. Advocates who violate ethics and principles of the profession should not be on the roll of advocates or aspiring to lead other lawyers. The 7 million claim is defamatory if untrue and Havi should likewise be pursued for monetary damages by any party falsely implicated depending on the circumstances.
The appeal as filed by Mutai is dead. Havi cant go rogue and run the appeal as if its his. A lawyer drives the client’s agenda and not the other way round. The only way is for Havi to file his own appeal.
In theory the judge could make a ruling absent concrete action by Mutai to communicate his wishes to the court. Mutai should put his instructions in writing for another lawyer to make an appearance and withdraw the case, at the same time he should make it clear that he has fired Havi. He could also direct Havi to withdraw the case and copy the letter to Ekuru’s lawyer. Havi is treading on thin ice and has shown that he is willing to engage in mischief before the court for a self serving political motives.