The High Court has handed Chief Justice Martha Koome a significant victory after a three-judge bench ruled that there were no valid grounds to challenge the team appointed to hear a petition touching on proceedings currently before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
The bench, comprising Justices Charles Kariuki, Lawrence Mugambi and Bahati Mwamuye, found that allegations questioning their independence and the process of their selection were unfounded and lacked any legal basis.
It also dismissed claims that Justices Lawrence Mugambi and Bahati Mwamuye, who were appointed to hear the matter, were selected in a manner that compromised their independence or suggested loyalty to the Chief Justice.
The court termed the allegations sensational and devoid of any legal foundation.
According to the ruling, all judges are equal in status, and the assertion that the appointed judges lack the necessary expertise was described as misconceived.
The court held that the grounds advanced did not disclose any reason to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for reconstitution of the bench.
The judges noted that no appeal had been referred to the Chief Justice, terming the application an impermissible attempt to reopen issues that do not fall within the High Court’s jurisdiction.
They stressed that the High Court cannot revisit or reassign the matter, as doing so would undermine the Constitution.
The argument that the deputy chief justice should have appointed the bench was also dismissed.
In its reasoning, the court relied heavily on the Court of Appeal’s Gachagua decision, which clarified the lawful process for appointing a bench.
The judges further observed that the question of empanelment was functus officio, already concluded, and therefore did not arise at this stage. They directed that any grievances should be presented before the appropriate court.
The court ultimately concluded that the empanelment was properly and lawfully undertaken.
The petitioner had argued that Chief Justice Koome, being a party to the JSC proceedings under challenge, ought to have recused herself from constituting the bench. They maintained that the matter should have been delegated to the deputy chief justice to avoid any appearance of conflict.
The petitioner further claimed that two of the judges on the bench were relatively junior, having been sworn into office in 2022 and 2024, and that they were interviewed and recommended by the Chief Justice, raising concerns of perceived loyalty.
They also argued that the judges lacked adequate expertise and were likely to favour the judges named in the petition.
However, the respondents opposed the application, insisting that no evidence had been presented to show the bench would issue a favourable or biased judgment. They dismissed the allegations as speculative and unsupported.
With this ruling, the court has affirmed the legitimacy of the bench and paved the way for the substantive hearing on the challenges raised against the JSC proceedings.
