Supreme Court merges three appeals on Judges vetting board

By Harold Ayodo

Nairobi, Kenya: The Supreme Court has consolidated three petitions challenging the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board (JMVB) decisions on Judges unfit to serve.

Supreme Court Judges Justice Smokin Wanjala and Lady Justice Njoki Ndungu delivered the ruling following a successful application by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK).

The LSK moved to the Supreme Court after the High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed its preliminary objections for courts to overturn decisions of the JMVB.

The Judges who challenged the JMVB decisions at the High Court and Court of Appeal are Lady Justice Jeanne Gacheche, Justice Riaga Omollo and Justice Joseph Nyamu.

LSK argued – through lawyer Charles Kanjama – that jurisdiction of the High Court over JMVB decisions were ousted by Section 23(2) of the Sixth Schedule of the constitution.

• .

  Keep Reading

• 
  Supreme Court rejects Tuju's new evidence in Sh1.9b EADB loan suit
• 
  King Mumia II opposes Echesa's appointment
• 
  Chebukati left off Court of Appeal judges' shortlist as Isaack Hassan enlisted
• 
  No reprieve for bank in Sh33 billion case with Manchester Outfitters

Consequently, the Supreme Court order has now merged three different petitions by LSK, JMVB and Attorney General (AG) Prof Githu Muigai over JMVB decisions on judges unfit to serve.

The Supreme Court further ordered the appellants to file and serve written submissions within seven days.

“The respondents are to file written responses within seven days after service and appellants should file and serve any written responses within seven days,” Justice Wanjala ordered.

The Supreme Court,  which enjoined LSK as an interested party, directed that the three consolidated petitions of appeal to be mentioned on April 24 before its Deputy Registrar.

Justice Wanjala said the mention is to confirm compliance of its directives and fix hearing dates of the consolidated cases.

“Consolidation facilitates the efficient and expeditious disposal of disputes and provide a framework for a fair and impartial dispensation of justice to the parties,” Wanjala said.

Justice Wanjala said that consolidation is not meant to confer undue advantage upon the party that seeks it nor occasion any disadvantage towards the party that opposes it.

“In the matter at hand, this court would have to be satisfied that the appeals sought to be consolidated turn upon the same or similar issues,” Justice Wanjala said.