Chief Justice Martha Koome scored a major victory after a three-judge bench ruled that there were no valid grounds to challenge the team she appointed to hear a petition touching on proceedings currently before the Judicial Service Commission.
Justices Charles Kariuki, Lawrence Mugambi and Bahati Mwamuye dismissed accusations that their empanelment was influenced by loyalty to the Chief Justice or manipulated in a manner that could compromise judicial independence. The court described the allegations as sensational, speculative and lacking any legal foundation.
The judges noted that all High Court judges hold the same status under the Constitution, calling claims that some members of the panel were “junior” or lacked expertise completely misconceived. They held that the arguments raised did not meet the threshold required to refer the matter back to the Chief Justice for reconstitution.
In a firm rebuke to the petitioner, the court stated that no appeal had been placed before the Chief Justice and termed the application an improper attempt to reopen questions that fall outside the High Court’s jurisdiction. The bench stressed that the court cannot revisit or reassign the matter at this stage, warning that doing so would undermine the constitutional structure governing judicial assignments.
The argument that the Deputy Chief Justice should have appointed the bench was similarly dismissed. The judges leaned heavily on the Court of Appeal’s Gachagua decision, which clarified the lawful process for constituting multi-judge benches, and said the issue of empanelment had already been concluded and was now functus officio.
The petitioner had argued that Chief Justice Koome, being a party to the JSC proceedings under challenge, should have recused herself from selecting the bench. They also claimed that two of the judges had been sworn in recently and interviewed under the CJ’s leadership, raising fears of perceived loyalty or bias.
But the respondents urged the court to reject what they described as wild speculation, insisting that no evidence had been presented to show the bench would favour any party in the dispute.
The ruling ultimately affirms that the empanelment was properly and lawfully executed and clears the way for the substantive hearing on the challenges mounted against the ongoing JSC proceedings.
