Court dismisses bid challenging bench picked by CJ Martha Koome
In the application, the petitioner claimed that the judges were handpicked in a manner that compromised their independence and suggested loyalty to the Chief Justice.
The High Court has dismissed an attempt to challenge the team appointed by Chief Justice Martha Koome to hear a petition linked to ongoing proceedings before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
A three-judge bench, Justices Charles Kariuki, Lawrence Mugambi and Bahati Mwamuye, ruled that the allegations raised against their selection were baseless, speculative and unsupported by law.
More To Read
- Kenya’s justice system under strain amid rising mob justice, overcrowded prisons
- CJ Martha Koome swears in sports disputes tribunal members, calls for fairness and integrity
- Wetang’ula decries 'disruptive' conservatory orders, urges judicial restraint
- Taxpayers could pay Sh15 billion annually for judges’ retirement perks, SRC warns
- From colonial cells to court reforms: A walk through Kenya’s Judiciary Museum preserving legal, freedom struggles
- Petition seeks removal of Chief Justice Martha Koome over alleged misconduct and delays
In the application, the petitioner claimed that the judges were handpicked in a manner that compromised their independence and suggested loyalty to the Chief Justice, especially since two of them were relatively new to the bench and had been recommended for appointment during Koome's tenure.
The petitioner further argued that the CJ should not have constituted the bench because she is indirectly linked to the JSC proceedings under challenge, saying the task should have fallen to the Deputy Chief Justice.
But the judges dismissed the claims as sensational and unfounded, noting that all High Court judges carry equal authority and expertise. They said the petitioner had not demonstrated any factual basis to suggest the appointed bench would lack impartiality or competence.
The court also held that it had "no jurisdiction to revisit or reassign the matter," explaining that doing so would go against the Constitution.
It emphasised that no appeal had been made to the CJ and that the issue of constituting the bench was already concluded, rendering it functus officio.
In reaching the decision, the judges leaned on the Court of Appeal's Gachagua ruling, which clarifies how multi-judge benches should be appointed.
The respondents had urged the court to reject the application, arguing that the accusations of bias were mere conjecture.
The bench agreed, concluding that the petitioner had failed to provide any evidence showing the judges would favour any party.
The court ultimately affirmed that the empanelment was lawful and properly executed.
Top Stories Today
