GROUP THREE

ADELINE CHELAGAT- LAW/MG/1835/09/21

DAVIS BRAXTON -LAW/MG/2179/09/20
FREDRICK MUKOKO- LAW/MG/1535/09/21
KIPCHIRCHIR BRIAN- LAW/MG/2258/09/21
ODUOR PATRICIA- LAW/MG/1880/09/21
TERESIA GICHOMBE- LAW/MG/1566/09/21
BRIAN KIPKORIR- LAW/MG/1636/09/21
RASOO MWARI- LAW/MG/2091/09/21
OFFENCES CONFERRING MONOPOLY

For a while Kenya has received an increase in the number of cases of unqualified legal
practitioners. The entitlement to practice law is conferred and jealously guarded by the
Advocates Act. The act is an effort to protect the dignity of the profession and keep at bay those
who plot to make easy money and benefit from the public who are largely the consumers of this
services illegally and unfairly. The act sets out to regulate and prescribe actions and behaviors of
advocates whilst prohibiting certain conducts as discussed below.

i) UNQUALIFIED PERSON NOT TO ACT AS AN ADVOCATE

Section 31 provides that subject to section 83, no unqualified person shall act as an advocate, or
as such cause any summons or other process to issue, or institute, carry on or defend any suit or
other proceedings in the name of any other person in any court of civil or criminal jurisdiction1.

Section 83 provides that nothing in this Act or any rules made thereunder shall affect the
provisions of any other written law empowering any unqualified person to conduct, defend or
otherwise act in relation to any legal proceedings

1
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 31(1).
Who is a qualified person?

Section 9- 13 provides for statutory basis of qualification to act as an advocate. The provisions
are absolute and any person who purports to practice as an advocate without adherence with the
said provisions will be held liable for acting as an advocate when unqualified2.

Section 9. Qualifications for practicing as an advocate

No person shall be qualified to act as an advocate unless—

(a) he has been admitted as an advocate; and

(b) his name is for the time being on the Roll; and

(c) he has in force a practicing certificate; a practicing certificate shall be deemed not to be in
force at any time while he is suspended by virtue of section 27 or by an order under section 60
(4) that is suspension by the Tribunal

Section 10 provides for certain officers who are entitled to practice as advocates in
connection with the duties of his office to act as an advocate and are to deemed as qualified
person to that extent. They include;

(a) an officer in the office of the Attorney-General or the office of the Director of Public
Prosecutions;

(b) the Principal Registrar of Titles and any Registrar of Titles; or

(c) any person holding office in a local authority established under the Local Government Act,
(Cap. 265).

(d) such other person, being a public officer or an officer in a public corporation, as the
Attorney-General may specify by notice in the Gazette

Provided that the officers shall not be entitled to charge fees for so acting3

2
Tom Ojienda & Katarina Juma; Professional Ethics, 65.
3
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 10.
Under the Law Society of Kenya code of standards and professional practice and ethical
conduct, part IV

It is professional misconduct for any person who has been admitted as an Advocate to engage in
the practice of law without a practicing certificate valid for the practice year or to allow his/her
name to be used by persons not qualified to practice law to offer legal services4.

The rationale for this standard is that;

a) Even though sometimes such unqualified persons may be capable of advising or representing
another in a legal dispute or undertaking conveyancing or corporate work, such a person is not
subject to the control of regulatory bodies, including the LSK and in the case of misconduct of
such a person they are not subject to disciplinary procedures of the Law Society and the
Advocates Complaints Commission since they are not members of the society5.

b) Advocate-client privilege in relation to an advocate authorized to practice law provide the

client with rights and protections that assure quality service 6 and recourse in case of professional
misconduct. Such is not available in the case of an unqualified person.

Any person who acts as an advocate while they are unqualified to do so is in contravention of
section 31(1) and shall;

(a) be deemed to be in contempt of the court in which he so acts or in which the suit or matter in
relation to which he so acts are brought or taken, and may be punished accordingly

(b) be incapable of maintaining any suit for any costs in respect of anything done by him in the
course of so acting

(c) in addition, be guilty of an offence7

In the case of Geoffrey Orao-Obura v Martha Karambu Koome, the appellant had filed an
appeal against the respondent. It was found that the Memorandum of Appeal filed on 21 June
2000 was signed by one Anthony Khamati, Advocate, who did not hold a Practicing Certificate
in the year 2000 in breach of section 9 sub-section (c) of the Advocates Act. The judges ruled

4
LSK code of standards and professional practice 2016, Part IV, 16.
5
LSK code of standards and professional practice 2016, Part IV, 16.
6
LSK code of standards and professional practice 2016, Part IV, 16.
7
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 31(2).
that the memorandum of appeal was incompetent having been signed by an advocate who was
not entitled to appear and conduct any matter in that Court or in any other court and hence the
struck out the appeal.

ii) REGULATION OF STANDARDS OF WORK AND REMUNERATION

Section 32A of the Advocates Act states that a person who is qualified as an advocate under the
Act may be employed as an in-house advocate. As such, one shall be an independent
professional legal advisor to his or her employer and shall not charge fees for services rendered
below the minimum prescribed fees under section 44 of the same Act.8

Pursuant to Section 44 of the Act, the Chief Justice may by order and upon considering the
recommendations by the council Law Society of Kenya prescribe and regulate is such a manner
he thinks fit the remuneration of advocates in respect of all professional business, whether
contentious or non-contentious.

The objectives of the order are as follows;

 It seeks to protect the public from exploitation by advocates by controlling the fees the
advocates charge

 It prevents the advocates from engaging in professional malpractices such as

undercutting and unfair competition

 It seeks to make legal services affordable to the public

 It seeks to remunerate advocates in order to enable them lead a good life as expected of
the profession.9

Section 32B sets forth that upon the recommendation by the Law Society of Kenya, the Chief
Justice shall prescribe the standards of work that may be performed by a person employed as an
in-house advocate under the Act and the Criteria for determining the remuneration payable to an
in-house counsel by an employer. The employer of an in-house advocate is required under
subsection 2 of the same section to determine the remuneration of such advocate in accordance
with the criteria prescribed by the Chief Justice. That notwithstanding, an employer may offer

8
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 32A.
9
Prof. T Ojienda and K Juma, Professional Ethics; A Kenyan Perspective.
the advocate remuneration which is higher than that prescribed. A person who contravenes this
section commits an offence.10

In Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & 2 others [2013]11 following the introduction of
Sections 32A and 32B in the Advocates Act by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous
Amendments)Act, 2012, the Law Society of Kenya brought a complaint to the High court
alleging that permitting the Chief Justice to prescribe rules on the remuneration of in-house
lawyers undermines the scheme of labour relations established in Article 41 and in various
labour related legislation where determination of pay is a contractual matter to be agreed upon by
employees, either directly or through their trade unions and their employers.

The LSK’s position was that the relationship between the employer and employee is a privately
negotiated contract and introduction of the Chief Justice into the equation simply amounts to
interference with the private sector contractual relationships between in-house lawyers and their
employers.

It further contended that the amendment would expose in-house lawyers to inequality given that
the remuneration of other professions like teachers and doctors is not regulated by the Chief
Justice or other arms of government and this position threatens their right to equality before the
law in contravention of Article 27.

The LSK was concerned that failure to define the term “in-house advocate” in the Advocates Act
as introduced by section 32A would risk the application of the section to wide range of advocates
leading to the confusion of its application. It claimed that the term “in-house advocate” purported
to create a category of advocates not contemplated in the Act based on their nature of work and
clientele therefore, the classification was not justified and amounted to treating a class of
advocates differently particularly having regard to the fact that the provisions dealing with the in-
house advocates fall within the part of the Act dealing with, “Provisions with respect to
unqualified person acting as advocates and offences by advocates.” LSK asserted that this
unwittingly implies that the in-house advocates become lesser individuals when they join the
corporate world. Thus, the act of singling out of one category of advocates for regulation of their

10
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 32B (1-4).
11
Petition 318 of 2012.
standards of work and remuneration is in breach of the principle of equality contrary to Article
27(1).

The Court in this case, stated that nothing in the Advocates Act including sections 32A and 32B
does not infringe the right of any advocate, either as an employer or employee, to organize and
engage in collective bargaining and there was insufficient evidence to support any breach of the
provisions of Article 41.

The court further observed that the purpose of the Advocates Act is to regulate the conduct of
advocates. In-house advocates, as advocates, are subject to regulation under the Act. Therefore,
the purpose of sections 32B was to provide for the regulation of remuneration and standards of
work for a specific sub-set of advocates.

The legislative intent of sections 32A and 32B of the Advocates Act is to protect the
independence of advocates who are employed by other parties other than advocates and whose
independence may be compromised by the nature of work demanded and remuneration offered
by the employer. Independence of an advocate has always been identified as one of the defining
principles of the legal profession. These provisions recognize that advocates in employment may
be placed in circumstances where their independence is undermined.

The Law Society of Kenya Digest of Professional Conduct and Ethics (2000)

The Kenya Digest of Professional Conduct and Ethics (2000) provides as follows in regards to
advocates employed by non-legal employers;

Rule 4.

(a) Subject to what follows, there is no objection to an advocate agreeing to do legal work
for an employer in consideration of a fixed annual salary.

(b) Provided that his employer allows it, he may also accept instructions from other clients.

(c) Such an advocate must comply with the Advocates (Accounts) Rules and the Advocates
(Practice) Rules,
(d) Such an advocate must ensure that his employer neither directly nor indirectly advertises
his services, nor in particular does not recommend him to fellow-employees.

(e) The advocate must satisfy himself that any recommendation by the employer was made
only at the express request of the intending client, and that he must explain that the employee is
free to instruct any advocate of his choice or such advocate whom he may wish to instruct. Only
on being satisfied that there is not, would the advocate be justified in accepting instructions.

(f) In no circumstances may an employee advocate allow his employer to receive any part of
any profit costs he may earn acting for clients other than the employer.

(g) As regards the employer’s legal work, the position is regulated by rule 4, proviso (ii) of
the Advocates (practice) Rules. The employed advocate can only set off the costs of contentious
and non-contentious work done by him for his employer to the extent of his salary and
reasonable office expenses. In other words, any amount by which the total fees exceed the
advocate’s salary and office expenses must be paid to him by the employer.

(h) No employed advocate can comply with proviso (i) to Rule 46 of the Advocates
(Practice) Rules unless he keeps a bills delivery book showing the full profit costs of all works
done for the employer, and there is an annual accounting with his employer in terms of the
proviso.

(i) An employed advocate who is also a Commissioner for Oaths cannot, of course,
administer an oath when he has drawn the document.

(j) It is improper for such an advocate to administer an oath to any official of his employer
in respect of that official’s duties.

(k) As a general rule an advocate whilst a servant or in salaried employment of any kind
other than those specifically exempted by an Act of Parliament should not appear as an advocate
in the High Court or the Court of Appeal. The following shall not be deemed to constitute an
advocate, a servant or in salaried employment.

(i) The receipt of fees as a director of a limited liability company, provided that the recipient
of such fees shall not appear as an advocate for his company.

(ii) Employment as a legal officer in any Government Department.

(iii) Part-time employment as a lecturer.

(l) Advocates holding full-time legal appointments with local government authorities,
parastatals or statutory corporations may appear in court as counsel as behalf of their employers
provided, they have a current practicing certificate.

(m) A non-practicing advocate in full time salaried employment may represent his employing
authority or body as an officer or agent in cases where the authority or body concerned is
permitted to appear by an officer or agent and in such cases, robes should not be worn.

(n) An officer in the Armed Forces who is also an advocate is not precluded by reason of his
being an advocate from discharging as an officer any duties which may devolve upon him as
such and may therefore appear at a court martial, provided he does so in his capacity as an
officer and not as an advocate.12

PENALTY FOR PRETENDING TO BE AN ADVOCATE.

Section 2 defines an advocate as any person whose name is duly entered upon the Roll of
advocates.

There are two persons: -

(I) Persons who are advocates by virtue of the fact that their names have been entered
upon the Roll of Advocates .

(II) Persons who qualify to practice as Advocates.

The qualifications as enlisted in section 9 of the Advocates act are;

(a)He has been admitted as an Advocate.

(b)His name is for the time being on the Roll of Advocates.

(c)He has in force a practicing certificate.

12
The LSK Digest of professional conduct and etiquette (2000).
Section 33

Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or
description implying that he is, qualified or recognized by law as qualified or recognized by law
as qualified to act as an advocate shall be guilty of an offence.

Documents not to be drawn by unqualified persons (section 34).

Unqualified persons are prohibited from taking instructions or drawing and preparing any
documents. There are documents and instruments strictly forbidden from being drawn or
prepared by unqualified persons either directly or indirectly and they include documents;

(a) relating to conveyancing of property,

(b) relating to the formation of any limited liability company whether public or private,

(c) relating to an agreement of partnership or the dissolution,

(d) for the purpose of filing or opposing a grant of probate or letters of administration,

(e) for which a fee is prescribed by any order made by the Chief Justice relating to
renumeration of advocates,

(f) relating to any other legal proceedings.

Any person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of any offence.13

There are exceptions and this provision shall not apply to;

- any public officer drawing or preparing documents or instruments in the course of duty.

- any person employed by an advocate and acting within the scope of employment.

13
Advocates' Act (No. 18 of 1989).
 - any person employed merely to engross a document or instrument.

Any unqualified person shall not accept or receive, directly or indirectly, any fee, gain or reward
for taking any instructions or the drawing or preparing any documents or instruments. Any
money received by an unqualified person may be recovered by the person whom the same was
paid as a civil debt recoverable summarily.

This provision does not apply to;

- a will of testamentary instrument or,

- a transfer of stock or shares containing no trust or limitation.

Any document drafted by such unqualified persons is not admissible in court and will be deemed
null and void ab initio as was in National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Wilson Ndolo Ayah
(2009)eKLR. Such documents cannot be relied upon as evidence shown in George Orao Obura
v Martha Karambu Koome (2001) eKLR where court of appeal held that the memorandum of
appeal signed and filed by an advocate who did not hold a current practicing certificate was
incompetent because the advocate was not entitled to sign and file that document.

An advocate who holds a current practising certificate shall not file any legal documents in any
registry under any law which requires filing of such document by an advocate or issue such
document for any other professional purpose unless there is a stamp or seal issue by the society
on each document.

FAILURE TO ENDORSE THE NAME OF AN ADVOCATE ON AN INSTRUMENT –

SECTIOV 35

It is an offence.

All documents mentioned in section 34 must be endorsed with the name and address of the
advocate or firm which it is prepared, any person omitting to do so is guilty of an offence not
exceeding Kshs 5,000 in case an unqualified person and Kshs 500 for an advocate.

Stems from principle of due diligence as well as well as protection of the legal profession from
quacks who masquerade as advocates, when they are not.14

14
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 35.
UNDERCUTTING- SECTION 36

It refers to the charging of legal services at a price lower than the one provided under the
Advocates Act. This is provided for under Section 36(1) of the Advocates Act which states that;
Any advocate who holds himself out or allows himself to be held out, directly or indirectly and
whether or not by name, as being prepared to do professional business at less than the
remuneration prescribed, by order, under this Act shall be guilty of an offense. 15 No advocate
shall charge or accept, otherwise than in part payment, any fee or other consideration in respect
of professional business which is less than the remuneration prescribed, by order, under this
Act.16

Competition regulation is achieved by establishing the minimum fees that professionals are
required to charge for their services. Advocates are expected to attract clients based on the
quality of their legal services rather than their low fees. If an advocate agrees to accept such an
agreement, that agreement is seen as an invalid agreement. 17 Therefore, the rule against
undercutting is designed to ensure that the quality of legal services does not decrease.

No advocate may hold himself out of or allow himself to be held out directly or indirectly and
whether or not by name as being prepared to do professional business at less than the scales laid
down by the Advocates (Remuneration) Order for the time being in force.18

In Civil Case No. 532 of 2004, Re Trepca Mines Ltd (1962), the defendant was seeking to strike
out the plaint on the ground that the same was an abuse of the court process. Section 45(1) of the
Advocates Act provides for the Remuneration of Fees, that an advocate has the right to enter into
an agreement with his client with respect to remuneration. According to Lord Denning," when a
solicitor makes an agreement with his client (the parties were not in park delicto), the solicitor is
guiltier for he ought to know better than to stipulate a percentage to him. If he recovers a fund
which belongs to his client, he ought to hand it all over to his client, and not to deduct anything
for his costs. He cannot sue for his costs directly, therefore, there's no reason to recover his costs
indirectly by deductions out of the client's money."

15
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 36(1).
16
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 36(2).
17
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 46(d).
18
Advocates Practice Rules, Section 3.
The rationale is that not only the advocate is deemed to know the law, but more so because the
person who is expressly stipulated to have committed an offence is the advocate. That the dignity
of the profession would be upheld if held if advocates comply with provisions of the Advocates
Act which prohibits undercutting of legal fees.

Ahmednasir Abdikadir and company advocates v National Bank of Kenya.19

This is an application by the defendant, seeking to strike out the Plaint on the ground that the
same is an abuse of the court process. Essentially, the defendant s contention is that the plaintiff
is seeking to enforce a claim which offends public policy. It is common ground that the plaintiff
is a firm of advocates. Its claim herein is for legal fees arising from its representation of the
defendant, in HCCC No. 958 of 2001.The defendant s contention is that the plaintiff ought not to
be allowed to prosecute its claim, as the relationship between it and the defendant constituted the
violation, by the plaintiff, of the provisions of Section 36(1) of the Advocates Act. The exact
nature of the plaintiff s alleged infraction of the law was said to have been its decision to enter
into a contract pursuant to which it would charge the respondent a fee that was less than the sum
prescribed bylaw. There is no doubt that the conduct of advocates is regulated by the Advocates
Act (Cap. 16) of the Laws of Kenya. Part (viii) of that statute contains provisions with respect to
unqualified persons acting as advocates, and offences by advocates. Section 36(1) of the said
statute provides as follows:-Any advocate who holds himself out or allows himself to be held
out, directly or indirectly and whether or not by name, as being prepared to do professional
business at less than the remuneration prescribed, by order, under this Act shall be guilty of an
offence.(2) No advocate shall charge or accept, otherwise than in part payment, any fee or other
consideration in respect of professional business which is less than the remuneration prescribed,
by order, under this Act. In the light of the forgoing, the defendant submitted that if any advocate
held himself out as willing to charge less than what is prescribed, that constituted a criminal
offence. Any relationship of an advocate and his client, if founded on such holding out would be
founded on an illegality. The plaintiff is said to have been guilty of executing an agreement in
which it agreed to charge fees that would be calculable on a structure which resulted in the fees
being less than the sums prescribed. It was on that basis that the plaintiff was then instructed to
act for the defendant. The defendant contends that it would not have instructed the plaintiff, if the

19
Civil Appeal No.532 of 2004.
plaintiff had not executed the agreement. As the plaintiff was well aware that the provisions of
the Advocates Act were mandatory, they knowingly represented to the defendant that they were
ready to act in breach of the statutory provisions, says the defendant.

SHARING PROFITS SECTION 37

An advocate who agrees to share his profits for any professional business, whether contentious
or non-contentious, with any person who is not a duly qualified legal practitioner is guilty of an
offense. 20 Proceeds of an advocate’s work should only benefit the advocate, save as provided in
the Act.

Exceptions to this rule

Payment of any bonus to any of his employees, being a bonus based on the advocate’s total
earnings or profits in respect to any period.21

When the advocate is paying an annuity or other sum out of profits to a retired partner and an
advocate who has agreed in consideration of a salary to do the legal work of an employer who is
not an advocate may agree with such employer to set off his profit costs received in respect of
contentious business from the opponents of such employer or the costs paid to him as the
advocate for the employer by third parties in respect of non-contentious business against the
salary so paid or payable to him, and the reasonable office expenses incurred by such employer
in connection with such advocate (and to the extent of such salary and expenses). These two
circumstances are provided for under the proviso to Rule 4 of the Advocates Practice Rules.

PROHIBITION AGAINST ADVERTISING AND TOUTING – SECTION 38

Advocates are not allowed to directly or indirectly advertise their services and or fees. 22 They are
not allowed to directly or indirectly solicit for clients as it amounts to professional misconduct. 23
There may be some potential for overarching conflict of interest or substantive evils whenever a
lawyer gives unsolicited advice (without request) and communicates an offer of representation to
a layman.24

20
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 37.
21
Advocates Act CAP 16, Proviso under Section 37.
22
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 38.
23
Prof Tom Ojienda and Katarina Juma ‘Professional Ethics A Kenyan Perspective’ 97.
24
Prof Tom Ojienda and Katarina Juma ‘Professional Ethics A Kenyan Perspective’ 97.
Advocates doing this tend to commercialize the profession leading to unnecessary and unhealthy
competition which affects the quality of legal services in the end. The consumer of these legal
services is likely to suffer. Professional dignity also is likely to suffer.

Reasons for prohibition include;

i. Protection of the public against being misled by unscrupulous advocates.

ii. Protection of clients and prospective clients against overarching by advocates.

iii. Protection of professional dignity.

iv. Protection of the public against lay interference that is common with solicitation of
clients by advocates.

v. Minimising frivolous or vexatious litigation.

What amounts to advertising is a question of fact and may include wide acts.

An unqualified person who procures or attempts to procure the employment of an advocate in

consideration of a benefit to himself in any suit or matter or solicit from any advocate any
payment or advantage in consideration of such employment shall be deemed to be a tout.

The chief justice if satisfied that the person is a tout may by order exclude such person from the
employment by an advocate in his practice as such.25

However, on advertising the court in the case of Okeyo Omwansa George and another v The
AG and 2 others held that consumer rights and rights to access of justice are interwoven. A
complete ban on advertising by advocates such as that contained in Rule 2 of the Advocates
Practice Rules undermines the right to access to justice and is therefore a violation that right.
And therefore in consistent with articles 46(1) and 48 of the Constitution.26

ACTING AS AN AGENT FOR UNQUALIFIED PERSONS – S 39- 40

It is an offence for any advocate who acts as an agent in any suit or matter in bankruptcy for any
unqualified person or permits his name or that of any firm of which he is a partner to be made
25
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 38.
26
Okeyo Omwansa George and another v The AG and 2 others (2012) eKLR
use of in any suit or matter upon the account or for the profit of any unqualified person or who
does any other act enabling an unqualified person to appear, act or practise in any respect as an
advocate in such suit or matter or who in any way assists any unqualified person in any cause or
matter in which he knows that such person is contravening or intends to contravene the act.27

Where an unqualified person acts as an advocate, no costs in respect of anything done by him or
her in any matter is recoverable.28 Arrangements where an advocate appears on record but the
profits go to an unqualified person are illegal and an advocate found to be a party to such
arrangements is guilty of an offence.29

EMPLOYMENT OF DISQUALIFIED PERSONS

Prohibition of Employment: Advocates are prohibited from employing or remunerating

individuals who are disqualified from practicing as advocates due to being struck off the Roll or
suspended.30 This restriction is in place to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
Employment of such individuals requires prior written permission from the Council of the
Society, which may impose conditions and specify the duration of such permission.

Advocates who are denied permission or face conditions imposed by the Council may appeal to
the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice has the authority to either uphold the Council's decision or
grant permission under terms deemed appropriate.31

Advocates who contravene these regulations or fail to adhere to imposed conditions may face
disciplinary proceedings as outlined in section 60 of The Advocates Act.32

Individuals disqualified from practicing as advocates (due to being struck off or suspended) must
inform any advocate seeking to employ them of their disqualification. Failure to disclose this
information constitutes an offense. However, those who seek or accept employment without

27
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 39.
28
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 40.
29
Professor Tom Ojienda and Katarina Juma, ‘Professional Ethics, A Kenyan perspective’.
30
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 41(1).
31
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 41(2).
32
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 41(3).
disclosing their disqualification face serious penalties, including fines up to fifty thousand
shillings or imprisonment for up to two years, or both.33

Liability of Bodies Corporate: If a body corporate engages in actions that imply it is qualified to
act as an advocate, it is committing an offense. Each such act can result in a fine of up to fifty
thousand shillings. Directors, officers, or servants of the corporation who partake in such acts
can also be held liable, facing fines up to twenty-five thousand shillings for each offense.34

33
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 42(1).
34
The Advocates Act (CAP 16), Section 43.