Pay former judge his dues, High Court rules

By Evelyn Kwamboka

The High Court in Nairobi has ordered the release of Justice Vitalis Juma’s salary withheld before President Kibaki sacked him.

The judge, who was shown the door in July last year, is to be paid the money after the court found he was discriminated against.

Yesterday, Justices Kalpana Rawal, Fred Ochieng’ and Martha Koome said it was unfair and unacceptable.

However, the three-judge Bench ruled it had no powers to reinstate the judge. High Court registrar, Chief Justice, the Attorney General and the Treasury are to calculate the amount he would be paid.

Faced tribunal

Unlike the other suspended judges who faced the tribunal, Justice Juma’s security, official car and salary were withdrawn immediately he was suspended.

He was told in a letter on October 27, 2008, by High Court Registrar that his salary and allowances had been withdrawn with effect from October 15, 2003 when he was suspended.

The judge moved to court after his sacking to seek declarations his removal was unconstitutional, the tribunal was illegally constituted to investigate him and that it’s proceedings and recommendations were illegal.

He asked the court to find that he was entitled to compensation.

Juma, who had been commended for exemplary services while serving as a resident judge in Nyeri, said through his advocate Stephen Mwenesi that the tribunal declined to summon the Chief Justice to explain why he had advised the President to suspend him.

He said it was wrong for the CJ not to appear before the tribunal to give evidence. He said the CJ also failed to show him the allegations against him before recommending to the President that a tribunal be set up.

Yesterday, Justice Ochieng’ said re-evaluation of evidence adduced would be tantamount to sitting on an appeal over the tribunal established by the President, yet the Bench is not an Appellate Court.

Justice Ochieng’ said the tribunal chaired by Justice (Rtd) Majid Cockar did its work and handed over its recommendations to the President.

"The matter is now past the stage of execution, if this case could be compared to a civil one in which a decree drawn up after judgement is thereafter executed. If compared to a criminal case, it can be said to have raised issues after the accused had served his sentence," he said.