Victor Maobe

Dream Chaser | Lawyer.

[mmatigari @matigary]

Before music came out of laptops 😂

[Victor Maobe @victormaobe]

Aren't they?

[Emirates @emirates]

Your email might be down, but the skies are always open. ✉️✈️

[Mike Beauvais @MikeBeauvais]

Some personal news:

Yesterday was my last day at Microsoft.

Today, I started a brand new job at the FAA and things are going pretty well!

[@MikeOkinyi HSC @MikeOkinyi]

Iko shida kwa Manyatta..... Arsenal legends are a no show. Only one player has arrived. As it stands, Arsenal legends vs Harambee Stars Legends game is OFF!! Details coming up.. ..

[Typical African @Joe__Bassey]

Before AI and computer-generated music, this was the best way to create sound and music.

[Sky Sports Premier League @SkySportsPL]

The moment the Arsenal squad found out they were CHAMPIONS! 🏆🙌

[Eric Theuri SC @etadv]

Advocate Abshir finally released from state torture chambers and dumped in Marsabit. Currently at Sololo Police Station.A government that treats its citizens as second class citizens with no rights and treats them inhumanly has no moral authority to govern!!

[Levi Munyeri @LeviMunyeri]

We know, beyond doubt, that our colleague Abshir was abducted by state security agents. If the State does not forthwith release Wakili Abshir alive, Advocates shall march to State House Nairobi to demand an order for his release from President Ruto.
Be advised.
#FreeWakiliAbshir

[🗿 #MARESCAOUT @jhonte_]

Guehi and donnarumma about to unleash delap's prime

[KONSHENS @konshens]

🇰🇪🇰🇪🇰🇪🇰🇪 KENYAAAAAAA!!!!!

NAIROBI, you’re on the detention list. 🇰🇪🔥

I’m coming to Sarit on December 18 for DANCEHALL DETENTION WITH KONSHENS — The High School Reunion. We’re taking it back to the riddims we grew up on, and I wanna hear you sing every word.

📅 Friday, December 18, 2026
📍 Sarit Expo Centre, Nairobi
🎟️ First Bell (Early Bird) tickets are on sale now at https://t.co/vWVYwfaCxQ & https://t.co/XTYmHkXetl.

Tag the crew you used to run with. I’ll see you in detention. 🔊

Presented by @talentafricagroupke @talentafricagroup @homeboyzradio @homeboyzkenya

#DancehallDetention #Konshens #Nairobi #Dancehall

[Kai Havertz @kaihavertz29]

HUGE win #COYG

[Eddie @Eddieug10Ug]

Chelsea handing over Man United to AS Roma 😂.
Smalling, Matic and Lukaku can't wait to cook Man United 😂.

[Manchester City @ManCity]

Full-time.

🩵 0-1 🟢 @okx

[Vice President JD Vance @VP]

.@AAGMcDonald gives an update on Operation Ghostbusters, a nationwide investigation into federal student loan fraud:

"Today, we are announcing charges against five defendants and the seizure of more than $750,000 in cryptocurrency tied to this scheme, and laundered through a network associated with Kenyan nationals... Whether you’re in Nebraska, New Jersey, Virginia, or Nairobi, we will pursue you and bring you to justice. The American people deserve better than ghost students, fake applications, and stolen aid."

[FC Bayern @FCBayernEN]

𝙄𝙣𝙖𝙪𝙜𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙉𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙎𝙩𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙪𝙢 𝙞𝙣 𝙆𝙚𝙣𝙮𝙖 🏟️

A special match to kick off the new year: FC Bayern travels to Nairobi on January 5, 2027, and will face Ajax Amsterdam as part of the ceremonial opening of the new national stadium, Raila Odinga International Stadium at Talanta Sports City.

🔗 https://t.co/WwSVkSXH5o

[Ebuka @EbukaMeansGreat]

The Ballon D’or just exposed the Premier League again. The Arsenal Agenda is real.

[Shabana Fc Kenya @Shabanafckenya]

𝐀𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐢 𝐀𝐛𝐝𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚 𝐈𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐢𝐦 Ball

#SportPesaNaShabana

[Ole Teya @TeyaKevin]

Shabana nao wanapiga ball.

The coach has built some good team.

[Ndong@Conslaw @Ndonglaw043]

Supreme in Maria Lilian Odongo v Martin Oseko and 3 others, Pet. E050 of 2025:
The Supreme Court has made a very chaotic and internally problemetic decision especially on Article 163(4)(a) Jurisdiction:
1. It separates TWO different jurisdictions - its own and the jurisdiction of the courts below. Para 35 frames 4 issues. Para 36-48 deals with issue (a) - Does Supreme Court have jurisdiction? Para 49-57 deals with issue (b) - Did ELC/CoA have jurisdiction? ✅

https://t.co/IpwjA3Ejnl first states that no party stated under which limb under Article 163(4) they are invoking jurisdiction and that, that alone is enough to warrant them to down tools. But then they do not. The court then says only in submissions has appellant stated the appeal is as of right, the court then moves and interrogates the threshold and finds it does not meet 163(4)(a) test. Analysis would have ended here.✅
3. Shortly the court turns around and on its own motion accepts jurisdiction on the argument that a challenge to jurisdiction of superior courts below is itself a constitutional question as of right.(Not that already that inheres that they have taken jurisdiction because it was a ground raised by the appellant that they move to touch to confer 'jurisdiction'. The power to even touch the grounds raised must first be determined either under (a) or (b), already they had said it meets neither.✅
4. This is even more problematic since recently in the decision of Kamuthi Farmers, they rejected the idea that a challenge of the lower court's jurisdiction can be a constitutional issue under Article 163(4)(a).✅
5. At para 47-48, the Court says the appellant claims proceedings were a nullity for want of summons. Then says such a nullity if true, goes to jurisdiction - a cardinal constitutional question. Therefore under Article 163(4)(a) it must determine that petition as of right. Now here it appears as though it is assuming jurisdiction for the first time, but it is exercising it in relaity since it had found the appeal meets neither 163(4)(a) or 163(4)(b).✅
6. It then invokes Lilian S and Macharia to justify taking that limited question first. Paras 37-38: Jurisdiction is everything, without it a court downs tools. So the Court cannot avoid determining whether ELC had jurisdiction in HCCC 2905 of 1993. If it finds ELC had no jurisdiction, everything else falls. Having answered issue (b) - that ELC and CoA DID have jurisdiction [para 51-57] - it then proceeds to have a logical basis to down tools on issues (c) and (d). Ehee😀✅
7. The Court then finds summons were issued - judgment of ELC says 'upon being served with summons they appointed Shapley Barret' [para 54], no prejudice shown by appellant who was not even a party to 2905/93, no review of consent consolidation, suit never struck out. Once jurisdiction of lower courts is affirmed, lis pendens and Article 40 become purely factual/statutory the court says.✅
8. It therefore then rejects jurisdiction on lis pendens and Article 40 [para 60-71]. It applies its own test in Paul Mungai Kimani [para 46] and Lawrence Nduttu, i) judicial hierarchy, ii) precision in pleading constitutional issue, iii) mere mention of Article 40 does not convert private land dispute into constitutional question, iv) only cardinal issues are to be constitutional to meet 163(4)(a), v) no factual re-evaluation. The Court finds at para 62, the dispute was fundamentally a private land dispute about Section 3(3) Law of Contract Act, Order IV/V CPR, Section 52 ITPA - not interpretation of Article 40.✅
9. It then muddies everything as it explains Ashmi Ruling and this is where it rejects the proposition that jurisdiction test at final stage of determination is the same at application stage. At para 60 the Court is explicit that Ashmi ruling was rendered at interlocutory stage on an application for conservatory orders, where the threshold for establishing jurisdiction is lower. In considering an application for conservatory relief, the Court says it need only to be satisfied that the appeal is arguable. It preserved jurisdiction to revisit at merits stage.✅
10. So there is no heightened test at application stage, there is a LOWER arguability test. It distinguishes Ashmi on facts at para 61. That in Ashmi, appellant claimed direct bona fide ownership and misapplication of lis pendens deprived already-owned property under Article 40. Here the court says, the appellant does not assert direct constitutional ownership, her grievance is procedural non-service of summons in a suit she was not party to and that Lis pendens is incidental. ✅
11. Therefore Ashmi cannot be used as a blanket passport for all lis pendens cases it says. The Court affirms ELC had jurisdiction independently because HCCC 2905/93 was a High Court matter pre-2010 Constitution, transferred to ELC - not because parties consented.✅
12. It follows its own precedent on failure to state limb but still examines at para 41-43, that under Sonko and Twaha, failure to specify limb under Article 163(4) is sufficient to decline jurisdiction. The Court notes this deficiency [para 41] but does not strike out the case immediately, it proceeds to test substance under 163(4)(a) anyway and dismisses only after finding no constitutional trajectory. The as it appears to both accept and reject does a hop, step and back. ✅
13. In short, the court accepted jurisdiction to check if lower courts had jurisdiction. (power it says is under 163(4)(a) but recently rejceted the same in the Kamuthi Farmers case). Finds both ELC and CoA did have jurisdiction. Therefore the court says it lacks jurisdiction to re-evaluate how they applied lis pendens as that is statutory/factual.✅
14. The Supreme Court here appears to create a two stage test for jurisdiction, first one to confirm if the lower courts had jurisdiction, when a party raises the same, (which it says flows from 163(4)(a)), then another that interrogates the merit issues to determine if the jurisdiction falls in 163(4)(a) or 163(4)(b). This is too problematic since under 163(4)(a) that preliminary split appears non-existent. 😀
Ndugu @joshuamalidzo @wuodosur @KensonMutethia @MiracleMudeyi @MigaiAkech
The Apex Court as a lover of Two-Tracks?
Link: https://t.co/oh7Z1tixc3