MOA Advocates LLP

01/06/2026

Happy Madaraka Day from MOA family

26/05/2026

At MoA Advocates LLP , we cherish continuous learning. It’s not just a core value; it’s our heartbeat.

​Peter Senge famously noted in his book " The Fifth Discipline "that an organization that does not learn will slowly die. In a fast-changing world, standing still is the same as moving backward. That’s why our MoA Advocates LLP is committed to evolving, questioning, and growing every single day.

​We don't just adapt to the future—we build it by keeping our minds open and our skills sharp.
​What are you learning today? Let us know in the comments!

​

20/05/2026

At MOA ADVOCATES LLP one of the things we cherish is mentoring and training of young lawyers.Training and mentoring of lawyers is essential for maintaining high professional standards at MOA Advocates LLP. By investing in continuous development, the firm ensures its advocates remain knowledgeable, ethical, and responsive to evolving legal demands.

Mentorship fosters practical skills, confidence, and teamwork, enabling junior lawyers to learn from experienced practitioners. This culture of growth enhances service delivery, strengthens client trust, and promotes innovation in legal solutions.

Ultimately, training and mentoring improve efficiency, reduce errors, and support long-term sustainability, positioning MOA Advocates LLP as a progressive and reputable firm committed to excellence in legal practice.

01/05/2026

Happy Labour Day

30/04/2026

Why Kenyan Courts Should Exercise Caution before Striking Out Al-Assisted Pleadings By Mwamu JA SC

The Judiciary is a constitutional organ established by the people of Kenya to interpret ,apply and uphold the Law in a manner that is fair ,impartial and consistent with Constitutional values.The Judiciary by acting independently and administering justice without fear or favour does so on behalf of the people of Kenya whose desire is the maintenance of social order, constitutionalism and advancement of the rule of law.

Given its mandate ,the Courts should in my view eschew the desire to strike out pleadings solely on the basis that they were generated with the assistance of Artificial intelligence.This approach is inconsistent with the Constitution of Kenya 2010 which verily places reliance on substantive justice under article 159 , access to justice under article 48 of the constitution, fair hearing under Article 50 and the progressive development of the law under the Supreme Court Act,the Appellate jurisdiction Act and Civil procedure Act.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning advent are technological developments that we must learn to live with. There is no turning back. Our Society has evolved from manual typewriters to electric typewriters and eventually to computers.Some typewriters we had in the days gone by used to generate pleadings bearing all manner of colours-red yellow or green but no pleadings were struck out.There is no turning back.

First, AI assisted pleadings present an important opportunity for Kenyan courts to develop principled jurisprudence on the responsible use of technology in legal practice. Article 159(2) of the Constitution obliges courts to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. As the Judiciary has previously embraced technological innovation—through e filing systems, virtual hearings, and digital case management—AI represents a continuation of this trajectory rather than a rupture from it. Rather than striking out pleadings, courts can engage with them to articulate standards relating to disclosure of AI use, verification by advocates, and professional accountability under the Advocates Act and the Law Society of Kenya’s ethical framework.

Second, in the Kenyan context, it is well recognised that a substantial body of judicial decisions remains unreported or inaccessible in mainstream legal databases. Decisions from magistrates’ courts, tribunals, and even some superior courts do not always find their way into official law reports like (KLR) or the eKLR database. There exist numerous unreported decisions that remain uncaptured and uncodified. Until these decisions are systematically identified, recorded, and incorporated into eKLR, it will be difficult to seriously and comprehensively address the issue of Artificial Intelligence hallucinations in legal research.

Third, Artificial Intelligence is already embedded in modern legal practice in Kenya and will increasingly be used by advocates, self represented litigants, legal researchers, and even court users. Article 48 of the Constitution guarantees access to justice, and any interpretation of procedural law that disproportionately disadvantages litigants who use technological tools risks undermining that guarantee. AI is not a temporary trend but a structural feature of contemporary legal work. Kenyan courts, as custodians of constitutionalism, must therefore adapt their procedures to accommodate AI within existing frameworks of fairness, ethics, and judicial oversight.

Fourth, striking out pleadings solely because AI was used in their preparation risks elevating form over substance, contrary to Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. The decisive question for Kenyan courts should remain whether pleadings disclose reasonable causes of action, raise triable issues, and comply with substantive legal requirements—not the means by which they were drafted. Where inaccuracies, hallucinated authorities, or misstatements of law occur, courts already possess adequate tools: directing amendments, seeking clarification, imposing costs, or invoking the use of discretion progressively.

Finally, the Kenyan constitutional order envisages a progressive and learning judiciary. Treating AI assisted pleadings as an outright defect forecloses an opportunity for institutional learning and doctrinal development. Engaging with such pleadings enables courts to shape the normative boundaries of AI use in litigation while safeguarding the integrity of the justice system.

As my teacher Professor Karim Lakhani observes, Artificial intelligence is the cybernetics of human capability: it is designed to augment, not replace, human beings. AI itself will not replace humans; however, human beings who effectively use AI will increasingly replace those who do not.Needless to say, the Judges and lawyers who use Artificial intelligence effectively and intelligently will replace those who do not.

The Judiciary already has ICT & Integrated Case Management Systems (ICMS) Committee in the Kenyan Judiciary which is a high-level committee focused on steering the institution's digital transformation agenda. It is chaired by Supreme Court Judge Hon. Justice Isaac Lenaola and the Committee’s core mandate is to monitor the implementation and progress of cyber security and provide guidelines on the formulation of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy Framework to enhance case management and legal research .In my well considered view , this committee should formulate rules and parameters on the use of Artificial intelligence.Microsoft is already developing software through its AI assistant, Copilot, aimed at detecting and addressing hallucinations generated by Artificial Intelligence systems.The judiciary can work with Microsoft to install such software in future.

In conclusion Artificial Intelligence is here to stay and will even get better.Presently the Judiciaries in United States and China are formulating rules on the treatment of Al generated content to deal with issues of verification, confidentiality, bias, accountability and disclosure and I believe our Kenyan Judiciary could borrow a leaf from those jurisdictions.

10/04/2026

http://thecitizenvoice.blogspot.com/2026/04/govt-told-to-invest-in-other.html

Govt told to invest in other alternative Sources of energy Get link Facebook X Pinterest Email Other Apps By Dickson Odhiambo - April 10, 2026 Former President of East African Law Society SC James Aggrey Mwamu at his office in Kisumu-Story and Photo By Dickson Odhiamb0 April 10, 2026 Govt told to in...

06/04/2026

Leadership Transitions in Kenyan Politics:

Reflections by James Aggrey Mwamu, SC
In a recent interview on Kenyan politics, our Managing Partner, James Aggrey Mwamu, SC, offered a compelling perspective on the evolving political landscape in the absence of Raila Amolo Odinga—a towering figure who has shaped Kenyan politics for over four decades.

Mr. Mwamu observed that the era defined by both “Raila Mania” and “Railaphobia” is gradually fading. For years, political actors have either rallied behind or positioned themselves against Raila Odinga’s influence as a central strategy for electoral success. However, he noted that those who relied solely on association with his name to secure political seats may find themselves increasingly irrelevant in the emerging dispensation.

Drawing on a powerful metaphor, Mr. Mwamu likened leadership to ocean waves—a continuous cycle in which older waves recede as new ones rise. In his view, political renewal is inevitable, and Kenya is entering a phase where new leaders must define themselves beyond inherited political capital.

Yet, he was equally clear that transformational leaders such as Raila Amolo Odinga do not simply fade into obscurity. Rather, like enduring ocean currents, they possess the capacity to rise again naturally, driven by legacy, resilience, and historical relevance.

“Leadership is like an ocean wave—old waves give way to new ones, but forces of depth and history ensure that some waves rise again.”

This reflection underscores a critical moment in Kenyan politics: a transition from personality-driven mobilization toward issue-based, performance-oriented leadership, while still acknowledging the enduring influence of iconic figures.

04/04/2026

Happy Easter from the MOA family.

May the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ renew our faith, strengthen our hope, and fill our hearts with great joy and lasting peace. As we celebrate this season of victory and new life, may love, unity, and God’s abundant blessings dwell with you and your loved ones. Wishing you a blessed, joyful, and peaceful Easter.

21/03/2026

Courts’ Struggle to Balance Borrowers’ Equity of Redemption and Lenders’ Rights to Realize Security By Mwamu JA SC.

The doctrine of equity of redemption has long been a cornerstone of property and credit law. It embodies the principle that a borrower who has mortgaged property retains the right to reclaim it upon repayment of the debt, even after default. On the other hand, lenders possess statutory powers of sale and foreclosure, designed to ensure that debts are recoverable and that credit markets remain functional. Courts across jurisdictions, including Kenya, have struggled to balance these competing interests, often oscillating between protecting borrowers from oppressive loss of property and safeguarding lenders’ contractual rights.

One of the earliest illustrations of this tension is found in Mbuthia v Jimba Credit Finance Corporation (1988). In that case, the borrower sought an injunction to prevent the sale of his property after default. Justice Apaloo, in dissent, refused to grant the injunction, stressing that lenders’ rights to realize security should not be lightly interfered with once default occurs. His brothers on the bench Justice Platt and Justice Masime, however, leaned towards protecting the borrower’s equity of redemption, recognizing it as a fundamental right that should not be extinguished prematurely. This split decision highlighted the judicial dilemma: whether equity should shield borrowers from harsh consequences of default, or whether strict enforcement of contractual obligations should prevail.

The struggle resurfaced in later disputes, such as the high-profile case involving Raphael Tuju and the East African Development Bank. Tuju’s company had borrowed millions of dollars, and upon default, the lender sought to auction charged properties. Tuju attempted to invoke equitable principles to resist enforcement. The courts, however, emphasized the enforceability of clear contractual obligations and upheld the lender’s right to realize security. Unlike Mbuthia, where equity of redemption was treated as fragile but still worthy of protection, Tuju’s case demonstrated a modern judicial trend: prioritizing certainty in commercial transactions and limiting equitable relief when borrowers fail to meet obligations.

The juxtaposition of these cases reveals several lessons. First, equity of redemption is not absolute; it is conditioned upon borrower diligence. Courts are reluctant to protect borrowers who delay or act in bad faith. Second, lenders’ conduct is scrutinized—any attempt to “clog” redemption through oppressive terms or premature sale may be struck down. Third, judicial discretion plays a decisive role. Some judges emphasize fairness and equity, while others stress contractual sanctity and market stability.

The broader implication is that courts are engaged in a delicate balancing act. On one side lies the borrower’s home or livelihood, often at risk of being lost through auction. On the other side lies the lender’s right to recover funds, essential for sustaining credit markets. If courts lean too heavily towards borrowers, lenders may become reluctant to extend credit. Conversely, if courts favour lenders excessively, borrowers may be unjustly dispossessed.

In Kenya, constitutional reforms after 2010 have added another layer to this balance. Article 40 protects property rights, while Article 47 guarantees fair administrative action. These provisions compel courts to ensure that lenders exercise their statutory powers fairly and transparently. Thus, modern jurisprudence increasingly requires lenders to act in good faith, provide adequate notice, and avoid oppressive practices, while still affirming their right to recover debts.

In conclusion, the struggle to balance equity of redemption and lenders’ rights reflects the broader tension between fairness and certainty in financial transactions. Courts continue to navigate this terrain, seeking to protect borrowers from unjust dispossession while ensuring that lenders can realize security. The evolution from Mbuthia to Tuju’s demonstrates an Oscillating orb of time or the brass sentinel in rhythmic sway. It is therefore safe to conclude that as the pendulum swings betwixt mercy and command, so doth equity of redemption and the stern rights of lenders contend in ceaseless, solemn measure in the Courts of law.

10/03/2026

Happy Birthday, Ms. Angela Mbogo! 🥳

​It is time to turn up the volume and celebrate! The entire MOA Family is coming together to send a massive wave of appreciation and birthday cheer to the one and only Ms. Angela Mbogo.

​Angela, your presence within our community is a gift in itself, and today we’re making sure the spotlight stays right where it belongs: on you!Happy birthday.