By: Rhoda Bogeta
The High Court has dismissed an attempt to challenge the composition of a bench appointed to hear a petition relating to ongoing proceedings before the Judicial Service Commission.
A three-judge bench,Justices Charles Kariuki, Lawrence Mugambi and Bahati Mwamuye,ruled that the application raised no credible grounds to warrant interference with the empanelment.
In its decision, the court held that accusations questioning the impartiality of Justices Mugambi and Mwamuye were speculative and unsupported by evidence.
The judges further noted that claims suggesting the two were appointed in a manner that compromised their independence had no legal basis.
The court described the allegations as exaggerated and lacking substance, stating that nothing had been placed before it to demonstrate bias or improper influence.
The bench also rejected arguments that the judges were unsuitable due to their relatively recent appointments to the High Court.
According to the ruling, all High Court judges exercise equal authority under the Constitution, and seniority alone cannot form a ground to oppose their assignment to a matter.
The court added that the issue of expertise was irrelevant, noting that the petitioners had misconstrued the role and competence of the appointed judges.
It further held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to revisit or reassign the matter, emphasising that empanelment is not a decision capable of being reopened through such an application.
The judges relied on guidance from the Court of Appeal’s Gachagua decision, which outlines the lawful process for constitution of a bench.
They observed that the empanelment was already complete and therefore functus officio, meaning the matter could not be reconsidered at this stage.
In the application, the petitioner had argued that Chief Justice Martha Koome should not have constituted the bench because she is connected to the JSC proceedings being challenged.
They claimed the responsibility should have shifted to the Deputy Chief Justice to avoid any perceived conflict of interest.
The petitioner also alleged that two members of the bench owed their recent appointments to the Chief Justice and were likely to rule in favour of judicial officers named in the petition.
However, the respondents urged the court to dismiss the challenge, saying the petitioner had offered no proof of partiality or likelihood of a biased outcome.
After reviewing the pleadings, the court concluded that the appointment of the bench was proper and in accordance with the law.
The ruling clears the way for the substantive hearing of the petition challenging aspects of the JSC proceedings.
