High drama unfolded in court this afternoon after a judge sharply questioned the health claims and intentions of a plaintiff, Ashwin Shaw, who arrived at the Milimani Law Courts in an ambulance but failed to appear before the bench despite a standing warrant for his arrest and a direct order requiring his presence.
The tense session saw a heated exchange between the presiding judge and one of the plaintiff’s advocates, Mr. Ndewa, over why Mr. Shaw had remained in the ambulance outside the courtroom instead of being brought in.
The proceedings began with the plaintiff’s advocates, Mr. Ndegwa and Mr. Mbego Adjiru, informing the court that their client was “within the court precinct, not in the court.” The judge immediately pressed for clarification, reminding them that the court had been told the plaintiff would be brought to court “in the condition in which he is.”
Mr. Ndegwa explained, “My lady, when we appeared before you yesterday, I attempted to address you about the immobility of the plaintiff… I again indicated to the court that we shall bring the plaintiff in the condition in which he is.”
The court, however, rejected the explanation, insisting that there was an existing order demanding Shaw’s personal attendance. The judge noted that the plaintiff and his legal team had shown “no good intention” to comply with the notice to show cause issued back on October 4, 2024.
The court observed that since that order, Shaw had “avoided court processes by failing to attend court” and only chose to come within the precinct inside an ambulance after a warrant of arrest was issued against him.
The judge further cast doubt on the plaintiff’s medical claims, particularly a diagnosis of dementia cited by his lawyers. She questioned how a person allegedly suffering from dementia could “give instructions to his advocates to file multiple applications and affidavits.”
“How,” the judge asked, “can a person suffering from dementia give clear instructions to counsel and sign documents?”
The exchange drew visible tension in court, with the judge hinting at deliberate attempts to delay proceedings and undermine judicial orders. The matter was deferred for further directions on the plaintiff’s compliance and appearance before the court.
