Tag: Chief Justice Martha Koome

  • Chief Justice Koome Faces Ouster in Explosive Scandal Over Biased Judge Picks!

    Chief Justice Koome Faces Ouster in Explosive Scandal Over Biased Judge Picks!

    Chief Justice Martha Koome is embroiled in fresh controversy after lawyer Nelson Havi filed a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) seeking her removal from office over alleged misconduct in the assignment of judges to hear a case involving herself and other Supreme Court justices.

    The complaint, filed last Friday, accuses Koome of improperly selecting High Court judges with relatively limited experience to determine a case in which she is personally involved as a petitioner against the JSC.

    According to Havi, a former president of the Law Society of Kenya, the Chief Justice breached judicial protocol by assigning Justices Lawrence Mugambi and Bahati Mwamuye to an expanded three-judge bench tasked with hearing the case.

    Both judges were appointed to the High Court relatively recently in 2022 and 2024 respectively raising questions about their appointment to such a complex constitutional matter.

    “The gravity and weight of the claim in the petitions by judges of the Supreme Court required an expanded bench of experienced five or seven judges of diverse philosophies and manifesting the face of Kenya, not to forget gender balance,” Havi stated in his 17-page affidavit.

    Lawyer Nelson Havi.
    Lawyer Nelson Havi.

    Havi further alleged that Justice Koome should have delegated the duty of selecting judges for the case given her direct involvement as a party in the litigation, citing precedent set by former Chief Justice David Maraga who delegated similar responsibilities when faced with a comparable situation in 2021.

    The underlying case represents an extraordinary development in Kenya’s judicial history the entire seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice herself, moved to court in February to challenge potential disciplinary proceedings initiated by the JSC.

    These proceedings stem from complaints filed last year by Havi and others regarding the Supreme Court’s controversial decision to ban prominent lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi and advocates from his law firm from appearing before the apex court.

    In her petition to the High Court, Justice Koome has argued that the potential removal of the entire Supreme Court bench could precipitate a constitutional crisis in Kenya.

    In his complaint, Havi also raised concerns about potential ethnic bias, noting that Justice Koome assigned Justice Mugambi to hear the matter despite both being from the same ethnic group and county.

    Havi drew parallels to the case of Derek Schofield, a former Kenyan High Court judge who was dismissed as Chief Justice of Gibraltar in the United Kingdom for allegedly instituting judicial review proceedings that he himself presided over.

    “The conduct of Ms. Koome is similar in all aspects to that of Justice Schofield before her,” Havi asserted, adding that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to “intervene or inquire into proprietary of hiring or removal of a Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice.”

    The JSC is now expected to consider and make a determination on Havi’s complaint.

    If found to have merit, it could potentially lead to formal proceedings for the removal of the Chief Justice under Article 168 of the Kenyan Constitution.

    This development comes as the latest twist in an ongoing power struggle between the JSC and the Supreme Court that has created significant tension within Kenya’s judicial system over the past several months.

  • Supreme Court Judge Accused in Ksh 6 Million Bribery Scandal

    Supreme Court Judge Accused in Ksh 6 Million Bribery Scandal

    Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi alias Grand Mullah has dropped a bombshell claim by threatening to expose the details of what he claims is a brazen act of corruption involving a Supreme Court judge.

    Taking on X, Abdullahi alleges that the judge solicited a Ksh 6 million bribe to sway a Court of Appeal case, only to fail to deliver the promised outcome and then refuse to refund Ksh 4 million already paid.

    This explosive revelation has ignited fresh concerns about the integrity of Kenya’s apex court.

    According to Abdullahi, the scandal unfolded about a month ago when a lawyer and their client met with the unnamed Supreme Court judge.

    The trio discussed a pending case before a three-judge Court of Appeal bench, with judgment imminent.

    The judge allegedly boasted of their influence, claiming that two of the three appellate judges were “his/her judges” and could be swayed to deliver a favorable ruling.

    For this illicit service, the judge demanded Ksh 6 million, Ksh 4 million upfront as a deposit and Ksh 2 million upon delivery of the judgment.

    The lawyer and client, persuaded by the judge’s assurances, paid the Ksh 4 million deposit.

    However, the scheme unraveled when the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment days later, and the bribe-givers lost the case.

    Abdullahi claims the Supreme Court judge failed to “speak to” the two appellate judges as promised.

    Lawyer Ahmednasir’s Abdulahi.
    Lawyer Ahmednasir Abdulahi.

    Furious, they confronted the judge, demanding a refund of the Ksh 4 million. The judge allegedly refused to return the money.

    What followed was a tense standoff.

    Abdullahi says the lawyer and client, feeling defrauded, are now threatening to recover the funds “by force/physically.”

    The situation, he warns, is “about to escalate.”

    Abdullahi further claims he was approached to publicize the incident to pressure the judge into refunding the money.

    “Please judge, kindly refund the Ksh 4 million for many people know about the incident,” he wrote, suggesting a broader circle of insiders aware of the scandal.

    Abdullahi’s doesn’t stop at exposing the alleged corruption.

    He challenges Chief Justice Martha Koome and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), offering to share “the details” of the incident if they demonstrate genuine commitment to tackling judicial corruption. “I’m sure CJ Koome is aware of this,” he asserts, suggesting the allegations may already be an open secret within judicial circles.

    This isn’t Abdullahi’s first clash with the Supreme Court.

    In January 2024, the court banned him and his law firm from appearing before it, citing his relentless criticism of its judges.

    Abdullahi, along with other prominent lawyers like Nelson Havi, has since led a vocal campaign against alleged corruption in the judiciary, accusing Koome and her colleagues of incompetence and misconduct.

    The ban prompted petitions to oust all seven Supreme Court judges, fueling a bitter feud that now finds fresh ammunition in this bribery saga.

    The allegations paint a troubling picture of a judiciary where justice is allegedly for sale, with judges wielding their influence improperly.

    The claim that a Supreme Court judge could confidently promise to influence a Court of Appeal ruling only to keep the payment without delivering raises serious questions about the integrity of Kenya’s legal system.

    If true, the incident suggests a potential network of complicity, with the judge’s reference to “my judges” hinting at deeper, systemic issues.

    Legal circles are now abuzz with speculation about the judge’s identity and the case in question.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

  • OLWANDE ALLEGEDLY RUTO’S POINT PERSON AT JSC, SOURCES SAY

    OLWANDE ALLEGEDLY RUTO’S POINT PERSON AT JSC, SOURCES SAY

    Sources within the government and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) claim that Commissioner Evelyne Olwande has emerged as President William Ruto’s key representative within the commission, allegedly playing a central role in what some describe as an attempted removal of Chief Justice Martha Koome.

    According to these sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, a faction led by Commissioner Olwande reportedly planned to recommend the formation of a tribunal to investigate the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice, and other Supreme Court judges based on complaints filed by lawyer Nelson Havi.

    These actions were allegedly undertaken with government backing.

    The sources claim these plans were only halted when the Chief Justice obtained a court order blocking the process.

    “She has directed all her attention to challenging the Chief Justice to the extent that she has forgotten her primary duty to defend her constituents,” said a magistrate from Lodwar who requested anonymity, citing concerns about professional repercussions.

    Critics allege that through Olwande, President Ruto is implementing a strategy to influence the JSC and potentially install judges considered favorable to his administration.

    Part of this alleged plan reportedly includes proposals to vet all judges and magistrates afresh.

    Commissioner Olwande did not respond to requests for comment when contacted last month regarding these allegations.

    The JSC plays a crucial role in Kenya’s judicial system, with responsibilities for appointing judges, handling disciplinary matters, and promoting the independence of the judiciary.

  • Panic Grips Kenya’s Supreme Court as Ghanaian CJ Is Sent Packing

    Panic Grips Kenya’s Supreme Court as Ghanaian CJ Is Sent Packing

    There is panic within the Kenyan Supreme Court after Ghanaian President John Mahama suspended the country’s Supreme Court Chief Justice, a move that marks a first in the country’s history.

    The suspension came after several petitions were filed against Gertrude Torkornoo which called for her permanent removal.

    The Ghanaian president has also directed that an investigation be launched against her.

    Gertrude Torkornoo is Ghana's third female chief justice
    Gertrude Torkornoo is Ghana’s third female chief justice

    This move has caused serious concern within the Kenyan Supreme Court, especially at the CJ’s doorstep.

    According to sources within Kenya’s embattled CJ’s office and the entire Supreme Court, the news from Ghana has exacerbated an already delicate situation at Kenya’s apex court.

    Koome believes that the Ghanaian President has set a bad precedent for the entire continent.

    The two judiciaries share close ties.

    Koome is currently battling several petitions that have called for her removal in courts.

    “We request the JSC to compel President William Ruto to form a tribunal and begin the process of removing CJ Martha Koome over allegations of corruption, gross misconduct and misbehavior,” reads part of the petition filed at the JSC.

    Sources within the JSC tell Kenya Insights that Everlyne Olwande, facing two others in her reelection bid, and former Governor Isaac Ruto want the CJ out.

    Olwande was once the CJ’s ally but now reads from different scripts.

    Koome’s petition is unique as the body she heads (JSC) has called for her dismissal.

    The JSC told the court that it wants to deal with Koome’s case swiftly and decisively.

    She would have been suspended even before her counterpart in Ghana if not for the current court directives on her case.

    Sources within some high ranks in government indicate that CJ Koome may be on her way out.

    “She better resign because all the plans to push her out are ready, there is no going back,” a source familiar with the matter told this reporter.

    Our judiciary sources question why she doesn’t want to appear before the JSC if she’s innocent.

    They allege she has handpicked the expanded bench to hear her petition, creating a potential conflict of interest and raising corruption concerns.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

  • EXCLUSIVE; CJ Martha Koome Allegedly Tells Close Confidants She’s Ready to Resign

    EXCLUSIVE; CJ Martha Koome Allegedly Tells Close Confidants She’s Ready to Resign

    Chief Justice Martha Koome has said that she is ready to resign amid increased calls for her to quit over corruption, incompetency and tribalism.

    This is according to a reliable source within her circle that requested to remain unanimous.

    The CJ who recently claimed publicly that she was going nowhere seemed to have given up and changed her mind if the current emerging details is something to go by.

    Two city advocates have been calling for her to quit over incompetence and recently one of the advocate threatened to lead protests to remove her from office.

    Lawyer Nelson Havi yesterday on his twitter account claimed that a certain judge requested Sh 150M from Sonko while handling her graft cases, details on this remains scanty.

    In additon , further details reveals that, the CJ is in bad terms with some Supreme Court Judges who are eyeing her position.

    ” She has decided to quit, she feels that there is an elaborate plan in and outside the Judiciary to remove her from office,” said Martha Koome’s close ally aware of the developments.

    Already, some Supreme court Judges are warming up to her position with multiple details revealing that the President and Opposition Chief Raila Odinga have already agreed to have an ideal candidate for the position.

    Martha Koome’s Tribal Accusations

    Our investigations into her office revealed that most of her staff comes from the same native tribe( Meru community) . This has caused her critics to call for her resignations . For instance, an insider told this reporter that, the first qualification for her to either give you an appointment or an assignment is usually based on tribe.

    CJ Koome allegedly does not know how to keep Friends

    Most of the CJ’s former buddies are now at the Periphery, according to people close to her, the CJ has a poor records of keeping friends. This plays to her advantage their is no one to stand by her aside. As the old adages goes, a friend in deed is a friend in need.

    *Divisions with the Supreme Court and greedy for her position*

    Some Senior Judges at the Supreme Court feels that, they are more qualified by the CJ. For instance, they also see her as incompetence and furthermore her lack of strong stand on some issues seems to have eroded her legacy.

    Sources and several appointments and public gatherings shows that the state has a soft hearted Judge whom it uses to fix some issues with the Judiciary. For instance a certain Judge is considered as as the state leaned Judge.

    According to a vibrant city advocate who command massive followers, the CJ has killed the spirit of the Judiciary and he is calling for his removal.

    ” We aren’t talking about women gender and issues to do with gender based violence but what we are talking about are serious issues of public interests, Incompetence and Corruption,” said an advocate.

  • Judge On The Spot For Allegedly Giving A Wrong Ruling That Allowed Eviction Of Residents, Deaths, Hospital Admissions Reported

    Judge On The Spot For Allegedly Giving A Wrong Ruling That Allowed Eviction Of Residents, Deaths, Hospital Admissions Reported

    A Judge at the Environment and Labour Relation Court is on the spot for contradicting himself and giving a ruling that paved way for the eviction of residents in an estate in Nairobi, Kenya.

    This comes after questioned emerged on whether AFRICA REIT LTD, a real estate firm with Governor Johnson Sakaja’s City hall were behind the said ruling.

    So far some residents who have stayed at the estate for decades have been admitted in hospitals and some deaths have also been reported.

    “I want Chief Justice Martha Koome to intervene and stop this judges from violating people rights, my mum is an elderly and we have stayed here for decades, the ruling was so traumatizing,” said a resident.

    According to the documents seen by Kenya Insights, the Judge contradicted himself and gave a wrong ruling that has now paved way for land grabbing and illegal constructions in Woodley estate in Nairobi.

    In his ruling, Justice MD Mwangi, struck off a petition filled by the Woodley residents who had sued to stop Nairobi County Government from demolishing and evicting  them in an inhumane manner.

    Justice Mwangi ruled that the petitioners in the case before him were the respondents in a decided case and were therefore “re-litigating case” terming it res judicata. But the Petitioner were not respondents in that case and have not appealed that decision which was the bases of him dismissing the petition and allowing demolition of Woodley Estate to proceed on. The ruling basically based on a past petition which was not part of the residents proceedings.

    The residents have vowed to take legal action against him and they will be filling a complain at the Judicial Service Commission, residents are also dissatisfied by ruling in which the judge ruled public participation has been conducted  as the tendering process by city hall was advertised. The residents say that is not the criteria set out by Supreme Court for  public participation

    The ruling shows that the judge relied solely on the affidavits of respondents and developer and was thoroughly critical of theirs and even used “unjudicial language” to describe their petition.

    They claim that the Judge relied on an affidavit and submissions of the Respondent and developer which introduced a different ruling with a different parties which they both told the court the petitioner was the Respondent in that case and he believed them and gave a disturbing ruling. The ruling seems to have caused confusion and anxiety even as Governor Sajaka men continue to celebrate.

    Further more as per the documents in our possession, the Judgement failed to address the petition filed in court but relied on the Respondent’s theory.

    “This court finds that the petitioners intention in filling this petition is to re- litigate an issue that has already been decided by a court of competent Jurisdiction ; by giving cosmetic facelift renaming it a constitution petition,” the Judge said while referring to ELC No 2054 of 2007 which the a court in 2015 had ruled it would not have binding effect on the other suits stayed pursuant to the order it granted in it.

    Ironically, that case was between Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission and Mr.Paul Moses Ngetha whom we have confirmed that was not part of the petition filed by the woodley Residents. The  case before Justice MD Mwangi was between Woodley Residents  Welfare Association, Petitioner Wanja Kimani, Peter Ngatia, John Mugwe, and  Samson Mugacha Mwangi against Nairobi County Government, The attorney General and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning.

    Residents had Raised serious issues that the Judge failed to address but instead proceeded to strike out their suit without listening to them & even ordered them to pay costs, yet the error was on the court.

    For instance, the Woodley Residents who are the Petitioners told the high court that the County government is attempting to grab the properties and give it for free to a developer,  which houses they had been offered to buy by the defunct City council of Nairobi and were asking to now be allowed to buy by NCCG having lived in the houses for over 70 years. The Judge failed to address their right of equity and upheld land grabbing instead in his ruling in which he also used a harsh tone.

    They also told the court that  the projects set to be launched in a month’s time will lead to bringing down homes housing 3000 residents together with their investments inside the estate.

    They say this is an attempt by powerful people to evict the residents and allocate the houses and land  to themselves and their cronies claiming that there is no environmental impact assessment that has been done and presented to them.

    They wanted  the court to stop the county government through its agents from doing any act interfering with the peaceful, actual and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the land known as Woodley/Joseph Kangethe estate land parcel number LR No 209/13539.

    The petitioners said  that they have lived in the estate for more than 70 years, adding that the estate has historical and cultural heritage and diversity that needs to be jealously protected.

    “The said members have known Woodley to be their home where they have built shops, hospitals, schools, churches among other social amenities for their use and benefit of other members of the public.

    They claimed  City Council (now Nairobi County Government of Nairobi) resolved to sell houses in Woodley to sitting residents,” the petition reads in part.

    “Corruption marred the process where outsiders (non-residents) were allowed to buy the houses in total disregard of the existing tenants and consequently the sale was stopped when Woodley residents went to court after continuously being harassed by people who came in with letters as proof of purchase.”

    The petitioners claim that the sale of the said houses was recognized as the same had happened in Makadara and Dangoretti where residents bought the City Council houses in the past and Woodley residents were expecting the same would happen in their case.

    The plans to demolish the estate were mooted in 2021 by the defunct Nairobi Metropolitan Services (NMS).
    They also told the court that the process was marred with corruption and other funny illegal activities.

    However without considering the above case that was before him, the Judge proceeded to rely on a previous case and the Nairobi County Government defense.

    “Having carefully considered the findings by the court in ELCCC 2054  of 2007, and the petition filed in this matter as well as the application dated 2nd April, 2024, I am convinced that the gravamen of the petition by the Petitioners is prayer number (D) in the petition dated 2nd April, 2024,” read the Ruling referring to the previous Judgement that the court said should be bound to other suits.

    Although that prayer (D) requested the residents be allowed to buy their houses, the judge ruled that was a concealed attempt to claim ownership of the houses by the residents,  which the judge said he had seen through it and was on guard against it.

    He proceeded to ignore all other 6 prayers and used just that one to strike out the suit and permit the County Government to proceed on with the illegal works of house demolishing based on the above ground.

    “An order does hereby issue allowing continued
    enforcement of the resolution by the Nairobi City Council (now County Government of Nairobi) to allow tenants to buy the Council houses at Woodley Estate.” he said.

    They state that was grossly  injustice as their petition was not decided on correct evidence and merit but on presumptions and errors. They will appeal the decision as well as report it to the JSC seeking the Chief Justices intervention to stop the evictions & demolitions that will affect thousands of Nairobi residents.

  • CJ Koome Appoints A Three-Judge Bench To Determine Petitions Challenging Gachagua’s Impeachment

    CJ Koome Appoints A Three-Judge Bench To Determine Petitions Challenging Gachagua’s Impeachment

    Chief Justice Martha Koome has constituted a three-judge bench to hear and determine Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s petition challenging his impeachment.

    In her directive, Justice Koome assigned Justice Eric Ogola to preside over the case, with Justices Antony Mrima and Dr. Freda Mugambi as part of the panel. The judges are expected to hear Gachagua’s petition alongside five other petitions that have been filed challenging the impeachment process.

    The Deputy President will face the Senate on Wednesday and Thursday, where he is set to defend himself against 11 charges after the National Assembly approved the impeachment motion. A total of 282 MPs voted to remove Gachagua from office, leading to the impeachment trial.

    In the motion sponsored by Kibwezi West MP Mwengi Mutuse, Gachagua is accused of corruption, tribalism, abuse of office among others.

    The petitions challenging the impeachment process have raised concerns over the legality of the proceedings, with some calling into question the manner in which the charges were brought forward. The consolidated case will explore whether the due process was followed in line with constitutional requirements.

    Gachagua has maintained that the impeachment motion is politically motivated and has expressed confidence in the judiciary to deliver a fair ruling. The Senate, which is expected to conduct the trial over two days, will have the final say on the Deputy President’s fate.

    The outcome of the Senate’s vote will be significant, as it requires a two-thirds majority to uphold the National Assembly’s decision to impeach the Deputy President.

    This means 45 Senators must support it against the 67 Senators who include nominates and others representing various interests.

    The trial could be extended beyond Wednesday should more time be needed for the examination of evidence and witness testimonies.

    If impeached, this would be the first time a sitting Deputy President in Kenya faces removal from office through such a process as outlined in the 2010 Constitution.

  • ‘You Were Rigged To The Office, Can’t Write Or Communicate Coherently, You Graduated Last In Your Class’ Ahmednasir Sustains Attacks On CJ Koome

    ‘You Were Rigged To The Office, Can’t Write Or Communicate Coherently, You Graduated Last In Your Class’ Ahmednasir Sustains Attacks On CJ Koome

    Despite being banned from appearing in the Supreme Court, Lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi has sustained his attacks on the court and more aggressively against the Chief Justice Martha Koome whom he has never shied from showing his dislike.

    In his latest attack, the bullish lawyer has claimed that Ms Koome was rigged into her position by former president Uhuru’s men while painting her as less qualified for the apex court position, “I’m utterly dismayed that as a CJ who was rigged to office by the Uhuru regime (you graduated last in your class, number 113 in a class of 113 and with a pass degree) and is supremely unqualified for the job (in your interview for CJ You failed to bring a sample of your writting, as you had none, and instead brought a judgment authored by three judges.” Ahmednasir wrote in X.

    CJ Koome consults with her deputy Ms. Philgona Mwilu.

    He cites technicalities that favored the CJ’s case to her current position and went further to expose her ‘incompetence’, “the Vetting Board tied 4:4 votes and that is why you were retained, their serious misgivings on your competence notwithstanding. The Vetting Board also said you can’t write or communicate in a coherent manner.” He continued.

    Ahmednasir has since called for Koome’s resignation, “you have the temerity to mislead the Ford Foundation and Mr. Walker and speak of the court in the conventional sense that Supreme Courts are appraised and praised in other parts of the world. The earlier you resign the better. I passionately plead with you to honorable resign so that the court and the judiciary are not destroyed by your sheer incompetence!”

    The lawyer was reacting to the visit by the Ford Foundation and its President Mr Darren Walker to the Supreme Court to discuss our shared commitment to advancing social justice.

    “The Ford Foundation has been an enduring partner of the Kenyan Judiciary and supported the post-2010 Constitution Judiciary to dialogue with other jurisdictions to enrich jurisprudence and cross-border judicial solidarity. Our continuing partnership will focus on the pursuit of People-Centred Justice programmes under the Social Transformation through Access to Justice (STAJ) Blueprint to spur universal access to justice especially for the marginalised and vulnerable.” The CJ said.

    Ford Foundation Global Board led by President Darren Walker, alongside Judges of the Supreme Court of Kenya.

    Mr. Abdullahi has been at war with the apex court which he describes as ‘a rotten Court not fit for purpose and ripe to be disbanded.’

    Last month, the Supreme Court Judges said they banned Ahmednassir over his continuous attacks on them which they described as demeaning. The lawyer has sustained attacks of the apex court judges, describing them as corrupt.

    “In view of the foregoing, it is the decision of this court, that henceforth and from the date of this communication, you shall have no audience before the court, either by yourself, through an employee of your law firm, or any other person holding brief for you,” said the CJ in a statement signed by the Registrar of Supreme Court Letizia Muthoni Wachira.

    The lawyer has since sued the apex court in the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) for the ban and also the High Court in a bid to have the ban decision reversed as it had impacted his associates too.

  • 11 Lawyers Banned From Appearing In Supreme Court Alongside Ahmednasir Sues

    11 Lawyers Banned From Appearing In Supreme Court Alongside Ahmednasir Sues

    Eleven lawyers associates of Ahmednasir Abdullahi LLP a firm owned by Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi are now challenging orders barring them from making submissions before the Supreme Court.

    The Judges said they banned Ahmednassir over his continuous attacks on them which they described as demeaning. The lawyer has sustained attacks of the apex court judges, describing them as corrupt.

    “In view of the foregoing, it is the decision of this court, that henceforth and from the date of this communication, you shall have no audience before the court, either by yourself, through an employee of your law firm, or any other person holding brief for you,” said the CJ in a statement signed by the Registrar of Supreme Court Letizia Muthoni Wachira.

    And now Ahmednasir Abdullahi LLP alongside its 11 associates have individually sued the seven Supreme Court judges over the decision to ban the lawyer, his law firm and associates from appearing before the apex court in a  reaction to his criticism.

    The associates who are before the court are Asli Mohamud, Peter Muchoki, Irene Koech, Esther Wanga, Cohen Ananya, Khadijah Said Ali, Elizabeth Wangui, Benard Onyikwa, Tonny Towett and Mohamed Abdi.

    Ahmednasir and the associates represented by lawyer Issa Mansur, contends that the decision communicated to his law firm on January 18, 2024, by Supreme Court Registrar Letizia Wachira is both unlawful and unconstitutional.

    In the petition filed Monday, they assert that the letter received from the Supreme Court cites personal grievances held by the seven judges; CJ Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko  against Ahmednasir, accusing him of conducting a campaign in the broadcast, print, and social media aimed at scandalizing, ridiculing, and denigrating the Court.

    He argues that the decision made by the seven judges does not stem from a judicial process exercising the Court’s constitutional and statutory jurisdiction as outlined in Article 163 of the Constitution or the Supreme Court Act. Rather, it represents an administrative decision without a legal foundation, lacking the juridical value of a judicial decision immune to challenge under the law, thus rendering it illegitimate.

    The law firm argues that all of these utterances reflect the personal opinions of lawyer Ahmednasir and are in accord with the freedom of expression rights protected under our Constitution.

    It is their argument they are not liable for the utterances of the veteran lawyer more so expressed in his private capacity.

    They claimed that some of the social media postings, media interviews and write-ups complied by the seven judges, and which allegedly damaged the reputation of the Supreme Court, were published as long ago as 2016.

    “None of the publications and utterances of Ahmednasir cited by the seven judges can be deemed to constitute of contempt of court by the petitioners to warrant the action taken by the judges to banish them from practicing before the Supreme Court,” argues the Muhrab building based law firm.

    Further, the publications in question do not constitute any serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice by the seven judges and Supreme Court judges are seasoned judicial officers who should be able to withstand robust criticism.

    Mansur emphasizes that the practical consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision is to ban Ahmednasir and his associates from appearing before the Court to represent their clients. This decision was communicated to them through a letter signed by Registrar L.M. Wachira two weeks ago.

    The letter explicitly stated that Ahmednasir and his law firm should no longer have an audience before the Supreme Court, whether in person, through an employee of the firm, or any other individual acting on their behalf.

    In their application, the firm, argues that the decision made by the seven judges is administrative rather than judicial in nature. They contend that if the statements complained of made by Ahmednasir are defamatory, the Supreme Court had the option to initiate legal proceedings against him rather than resorting to a banishment from practicing before the Court.

    According to Mansur, the ban does not enjoy immunity from being challenged before the lower courts as it lacks legitimacy.

    “The ban which is for an unspecified period of time is a draconian step against the petitioners and all advocates presently and in future, working for the first petitioner firm from representing any client at the Supreme Court,” he said.

    The law firm and associates want the court to find that Supreme Court judges and Muthoni are not above the law.

    Mansur wants the High Court to find that the ban was an administrative decision and it cannot be used to banish Ahmednasir’s law firm, partners and associates from appearing before that court.

    They are also seeking orders to quash the ban and costs.

    A similar case was filed by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), which argued that the top court had usurped its powers to deal and discipline advocates adding that the ban was unfair as it also included persons and litigants who were not a part of the issue.

    In response, Supreme Court judges want the case filed by LSK challenging the decision barring Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi from appearing before them dismissed, arguing that the High Court has no power to deal with the matter.

    Through Senior Counsel Kamau Karori and James Ochieng’ Oduol, the Supreme Court judges led by Chief Justice Martha Koome said they will be asking the court to strike out the petition.

    “Jurisdiction is everything. Without jurisdiction, the petition cannot stand and the issues raised in it cannot be addressed,” Mr Oduol submitted.

    Meanwhile, the decision by the Supreme Court still stands and neither Ahmednasir nor his law firm is allowed to appear before the court.

    On January 18, 2024, the Supreme Court made good its stand not to accord Ahmednasir audience as he prepared to represent his client in a Sh2 billion land case.

    The case was to be heard virtually when Supreme Court judges led by Koome said they will not proceed with the case if the lawyer and or any of his agents were part of the defence.

    The court then adjourned and six judges recused themselves.

  • Corruption Is To Blame Over Shoddy Construction Works In The New Mombasa Law Courts Building

    Corruption Is To Blame Over Shoddy Construction Works In The New Mombasa Law Courts Building

    For three years after the completion of the new Mombasa Law Courts Buildings, the four-storey building remains unoccupied over structural defects.

    Lawyers and stakeholders in the justice sector have raised concerns over the state of the building, which apart from developing cracks on the walls, has parts of its ceiling falling off, paint peeling and some window frames turning rusty.

    Through the Law Society of Kenya( LSK) Mombasa chapter, the lawyers claim that substandard materials were used in the construction of the building and that there was no consideration made for the climatic conditions of Mombasa where salinity is high.

    According to sources privy to the scandalous project, senior judicial officers in Nairobi and Mombasa conspired and looted cash leaving the contractor with little hence the use of substandard materials in the construction. Now the judiciary risks losing millions in the building that has been avoided by lawyers and judges as it poses collapse dangers.

    Chief Justice Martha Koome this week admitted that the building is a major concern to the judiciary and that they have been unable to launch or open it officially as it has been found to have structural defects.

    “We thought we had solved the problem of infrastructure by building the ‘Justice Tower’, but unfortunately we were let down by the contractor,” said the CJ on Wednesday.

    The CJ said that a team from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) audit committee assessed the building and filed a report and that issues were raised with the contractor who ran away from the site.

    LSK Mombasa chapter chairperson Mr Charles Opullu termed the building as a health hazard and a risk to anyone using it.

    Mr Opullu said the construction has been a project which is close to the hearts of all lawyers in Mombasa as they confronted a land grabber, and recovered the land for the construction of the court and the title deed issued to the Judiciary.

    “The structural integrity of the building must be tested before it can be declared fit for occupation, we wonder if there were any approvals and supervision by the Judiciary,” said Mr Opullu.

    Mr Opullu said that it was the lawyers who drew the attention of the state of the building to the Judiciary and wrote several demands to the Judicial Service Commission with evidence of cracks, leaking slabs and other defects.

    The building, which is expected to ease congestion at the current court building, has eight courtrooms, mediation rooms, chambers, spacious registries, and lactation rooms among other amenities.

    It is expected to host the High Court, Environment and Land Court and the Employment and Labour Relations Court which is the only court operating on the second floor.

    Additional reporting by Nation.

  • Quick Appointment Of Former LSK CEO Mercy Wambua To A State Agency Raises Queries

    Quick Appointment Of Former LSK CEO Mercy Wambua To A State Agency Raises Queries

    The appointment of Ex- Law Society of Kenya Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Mercy Wambua to the Commission on Administrative Justice (Ombudsman) has left many with questions with the swiftness that it occurred.

    Wambua reportedly took the oath of office as CEO/secretary in a ceremony presided over by Chief Justice Martha Koome on Thursday afternoon, March 3, 2022.

    The former CEO is succeeding Leonard Ngaluma who left after serving at that capacity for a decade.

    Critics are questioning how Ms Wambua was so lucky that she landed the government job within weeks of exiting the former job? Her colleagues in the profession are said to whisper that the controversial figure, who survived every effort to eject her at the helm of the lobby, may have been favoured to get the job.

    Her enemies claim that the quick hiring was a reward for allegedly having held brief for certain powerful interests in the professional outfit.  Her critics are asking when her current job’s vacancy was advertised as required?

    She previously served as the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) chief executive, after succeeding Apollo Mboya five years ago in 2016.

    Ms. Wambua was kicked out of LSK following her differences with former LSK President Nelson Havi, and was, however, reinstated by the High Court in November last year.

    Nelson Havi was never in the good books with the state and openly criticized. He was arrested in July 21 over assault allegations against Ms Wambua.

    Mr Havi as allied to the Deputy President William Ruto who has been in crossroads with the President in the recent past. Havi is vying for Westlands MP seat on UDA, a party affiliated with the DP.

  • Judiciary to recruit 50 magistrates from September, CJ announces

    Judiciary to recruit 50 magistrates from September, CJ announces

    The Judiciary will recruit 50 more magistrates from next month to address case backlog in the institution.

    Chief Justice Martha Koome says they will also make efforts to bridge the gap created in the High Court by the recent elevation of 10 judges to the Court of Appeal.

    Speaking during a meeting with the Principal and presiding judges from the High Court, Koome said they need a multi-door approach like the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Court Annexed Mediation to offload cases from the courts.

    She said more than 5,000 cases have been resolved through mediation which translate to a success rate of 60 per cent, injecting Sh14bn back into the Kenyan economy.

    The CJ said all cases in the courts should be active and consistently managed before a judge or the deputy registrar.

    “We will also unveil Practice Directions developed by the Criminal and other Divisions of the High Court to support case management and docket organisation,” the CJ said.

    The Chief Justice is also rooting for the adoption of a no-adjournment policy in the courts as part of a strategy to clear the perennial backlog of cases.

    Koome is alos on record saying she wants all cases resolved within three years of filing, and within a year at the appellate stage.
    High Court Principal Judge Justice Lydia Achode, revealed that various divisions of the High Court have been clearing case backlog through comprehensive case audits.

    “The Commercial and Tax Division which had 7,497 cases as at June 30, 2020 has managed to clear 3,744 cases,” Justice Achode said adding that during the same period, 2,315 new cases were filed, leading to a caseload of 6,038 as at June 30 this year.

    “The division has also adopted use of the Judiciary Transcription System where court proceedings are recorded and transcribed real-time,” she added.

    In the Family Division, 1,556 cases were resolved out of 4,519, with an additional 2,621 new cases filed.

    In the Civil Division, 1,869 cases were finalised over the same period out of 6,867, with an extra 1,979 new cases lodged.

    In the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division, there were 190 cases pending as at June 30, 2020 with 75 cases resolved by June this year. Over the same period, 62 new cases were filed.

    In the Judicial Review Division, 276 cases out of 1,153 cases were resolved, with another 342 cases filed over the same period.

    In the Criminal Division 397 cases were resolved out of 1,628, with another 918 cases filed.

    In the Constitutional Division 1,016 cases were pending, with an additional 454 cases filed and 407 finalised over a similar period.

    Apart from the audits, the courts have adopted use of IT, updating the case tracking system, using service weeks, Rapid Result Initiatives and Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms to finalise pending cases.

    The courts are however faced with a low number of judges, shortage of staff and lack of adequate court rooms to effectively handle cases.

  • Supreme Court Rules On Confusing Muruatetu Case

    Supreme Court Rules On Confusing Muruatetu Case

    Chief Justice Martha Koome on Tuesday, July 6, had her first sitting at the Supreme Court where her first order of business was to end the confusing jurisprudence established by the famous Muruatetu case.

    Koome directed that the Muruatetu jurisprudence was only applicable in cases where accused were given the mandatory death sentence, as provided under sections 203 and 204 of the penal code.

    Additionally, Koome stated that all those who had been handed the mandatory death sentence would be given a chance to file appeals and get new sentences.

    Muruatetu is a case in which a convicted murderer, Francis Karoki Muruatetu, was immortalised following a landmark case where he successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Kenya to declare the mandatory death penalty unconstitutional.

    The lower courts, however, have at times interrupted the famous ruling as declaring all mandatory court sentences as unconstitutional.

    Judges and magistrates have used their discretion to deviate from stipulated mandatory sentences, especially in sexual offences matters.

    During the interviews for the next Chief Justice, Judge Said Chitembwe courted controversy after he indicated that he had used the Muruatetu precedent in a case where a 24-year old was accused of defiling a minor.

    The judge declined to hand over the mandatory 20-year prison sentence, arguing that the court could consider the fact that the minor had acted as an adult in order to entrap the accused.  The ruling was awarded the Golden Bludgeon for the worst judgment in the world 2017.

    Koome, on her part, made it clear to the Chief Justice interviewing panel that she would limit the use of the Muruatetu case to the mandatory death sentence.

    In re-hearing the charge for murder, Koome stated that the court would consider; the age of the offender, being a first-time offender, character and record of the offender, physical and psychological effects of the offense to the family and remorsefulness of the offender.

    “All offenders who have been subjected to the mandatory death penalty and desire to be heard on sentence will be entitled to resentence hearing.”

    “In resentencing and hearing, the court must record the prosecutions and the appellant’s submissions as well as those of the victims before deciding a suitable sentence,” she added.

    Muruatetu and his co-accused Wilson Thirimbu were convicted for the murder of Nairobi businessman Lawrence Githinji in 2000.

    They were also sentenced to death as provided by Penal Code 204 which states that “Any person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death.”

    However, after the duo had spent 14 years in prison, they filed a petition at the Supreme Court.

    The mandatory death penalty was then declared unconstitutional.