The Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court decision dismissing allegations that certain law firms should be disqualified from representing parties in a massive fraud case involving Imperial Bank Limited.
The appeal centered on claims that the law firms of Ahmednasir Abdikadir & Co Advocates, Muriu Mungai & Co Advocates, and Coulson Harney Advocates possessed confidential information that could prejudice the bank’s case.
The case stems from the bank’s receivership amid allegations of systemic fraud, theft, money laundering, and breach of fiduciary duties by top officials and directors.
The appellants, Imperial Bank Limited (in receivership) and Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation, sought to bar the law firms from acting for some respondents, citing conflict of interest and breach of confidentiality.
The Court analyzed detailed legal principles governing conflicts of interest and confidentiality, emphasizing that mere listing as a legal advisor or advocate does not automatically disqualify a law firm from acting for a party.
The court noted that to justify disqualification, there must be concrete evidence that the law firm possessed confidential information relevant to the case, which could be used to prejudice the bank.
The appellate bench, comprising Justices W. Karanja, Achode, and Odunga, found no sufficient evidence to establish that the law firms had access to such sensitive information or that their continued representation would cause real prejudice.
They stressed that allegations must be specific and supported by evidence demonstrating actual conflict or risk of misuse of confidential information.
The court further held that the risk of conflict, especially when law firms act for multiple clients or are on the same panel, is not automatic grounds for disqualification. Each case must be assessed on its facts, and vague suspicions are insufficient to deny a party its constitutional right to legal representation.
