Supreme Court sets new rules for lawyers

Lawyers seeking review of court orders will be required to satisfactorily demonstrate that the judges erred.

Parties in the review application are to only focus on the decision of the court and not the merit of the main case that led to the judge's decision.

The Supreme Court has released principle guidelines that now require one to stick to the points by proving to the court how the bench that made the order misdirected themselves

SEE ALSO :Political meddling pushing JSC towards total State takeover

“Review of exercise of discretion is not a right; but an equitable remedy which calls for a basis to be laid by the applicant to the satisfaction of the court,” said Justice JB Ojwang.

He said this in a ruling also signed by Chief Justice David Maraga, Deputy CJ Philomena Mwilu, Justice Mohamed Ibrahim and Njoki Ndungu.

In the case that led to the ruling, Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) wanted the judges to review an order that was issued by a two judge bench comprising of Justice Smokin Wanjala and Isaac Lenaola on March 24, 2017 in a case against Embu Governor Martin Wambora.

PSC wanted to appeal against a decision by appellate judges that reinstated Mr Wambora after impeachment and sought the Supreme Court’s permission to file the case out of time.

The commission argued that the delay in challenging Court of Appeal’s decision was as a result of delay in being furnished by typed proceedings.

SEE ALSO :Petitions filed over gender rule

In response, the governor told the court the delay did not warrant the grant of the extension sought because the typed proceedings were ready by April 5, 2016 yet PSC filed the application on May 25, 2016.

The judges ruled that there were no compelling reasons for justification of the inordinate delay. PSC then filed for review by a five judge bench of the Supreme Court, saying the removal of a governor from office is a matter of public interest and the intended appeal was not frivolous.

Supreme CourtLawyersChief Justice David MaragaJudiciary