The Kenya Union of Savings and Credit Co-operatives (KUSCO) is facing embarrassment at the Co-operative Tribunal in Nairobi after their highly-paid legal counsel made what experts are calling a “rookie mistake” that even first-year law students would avoid.
The controversy began when whistleblower Nelson Amenya revealed several weeks ago that KUSCO had hired and paid Cecil Miller, a lawyer, a staggering Sh20 million to defend the organization in what Amenya described as “dubious cases.” That investment is now looking increasingly questionable as Miller’s legal missteps play out in court.
The case centers on Miller’s attempt to file an application seeking to stop a special Annual General Meeting (AGM) without following proper legal procedures. The application, filed on behalf of KUSCO, has drawn sharp criticism from the opposing Housing Cooperative, which has responded with a formal Preliminary Objection aimed at terminating the case entirely.
The Housing Cooperative’s legal team argues that Miller’s application contains fundamental procedural errors that violate basic tenets of Kenyan legal practice. They contend that the application breaches critical provisions of both the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Procedure Rules, which serve as the backbone of court procedures in Kenya.
At the heart of the objection is a technical but crucial legal point: the type of court order KUSCO seeks through Miller – an injunction to halt the special AGM – cannot legally be obtained through the kind of application that was filed. This represents a basic misunderstanding of legal procedure that seasoned practitioners would typically avoid.
The Preliminary Objection filed by the Housing Cooperative specifically challenges the competency of Miller’s application, arguing that the legal errors are so fundamental that the case cannot proceed in its current form. If successful, the objection would effectively kill the case before it reaches substantive hearings, leaving KUSCO without the relief it sought and potentially exposing the organization to additional legal costs.
For KUSCO, the situation is particularly embarrassing given the substantial fee paid to Miller. The Sh20 million investment was presumably made to secure top-tier legal representation, yet the organization now finds itself defending against accusations of basic procedural incompetence.
The case highlights broader concerns about legal procurement and due diligence in cooperative organizations. With millions of shillings at stake and members’ interests hanging in the balance, the expectation would be that such significant legal expenditure would guarantee competent representation.
As proceedings continue at the Co-operative Tribunal, KUSCO faces the uncomfortable reality that their expensive legal strategy may have backfired spectacularly. The outcome of the Preliminary Objection will determine whether Miller gets a chance to remedy his procedural errors or whether KUSCO’s Sh20 million investment becomes a cautionary tale about the importance of thorough legal vetting.
The case serves as a stark reminder that in legal practice, experience and competence cannot always be measured by price tags, and that even the most expensive counsel can make costly mistakes when proper procedures are not followed.
There's no story that cannot be told. We cover the stories that others don't want to be told, we bring you all the news you need. If you have tips, exposes or any story you need to be told bluntly and all queries write to us [email protected] also find us on Telegram
