Court of Appeal Archives

Why President Uhuru Has Moved To Court Of Appeal

by Yahil Felix October 26, 2021

President Uhuru Kenyatta has moved to the court of appeal to file a notice of appeal against the High Court’s order that requires him to appoint six judges he had rejected over alleged integrity issues, within 14 days.

The President had refused to appoint the six judges citing intelligence briefs from the National Intelligence Service (NIS).

However, the Judicial Service Commission, which did the vetting of 41 judges to be appointed argued that the brief did not provide evidence.

The President has said he is not happy with the ruling rendered a week ago by Justices George Dulu, William Musyoka and James Wakiaga. Through lawyer Wawru Gatonye, he intends to appeal against the entire 69-page judgement.

The appeal comes two days after Attorney General Paul Kihara Kariuki also filed a similar notice, signaling that the impasse may continue.

The attorney general lodged his notice through deputy Chief State Counsel Emmanuel Bitta.

The President and the AG are aggrieved by the court’s ruling that the Head of State can be sidestepped in the appointment of judges.

Both want to challenge a finding by the court that should the President fail to make the appointments and facilitate an oath-taking ceremony within 14 days, he will lose control of the process and the judges will be deemed dully appointed.

The judges at the center of the legal dispute are George dunga, Aggrey Muchelule, Joel Ngugi and Weldon Korir, together with Mombasa Chief Magistrate Evans Makori and High Court Judith Omange.

When the 14 days given to the president lapse, it will be presumed his power or authority on the issue will be deemed duly appointed to their respective offices, said the High Court.

Subsequently, Chief Justice Martha Koome and JSC will be at liberty to take all necessary steps in having the nominees sworn in and assigned duties.

October 26, 2021 0 comment

Politics

Raila Breaks His Silence On BBI Ruling, Reveals Next Move

by Mustafa Juma August 20, 2021

written by Mustafa Juma

Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) leader Raila Odinga has broken his silence on the ruling made by the court of appeal on the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI).

Taking to his official Twitter account on Friday evening, Raila said that the ruling is not the end of the conversation.

He noted that the parties involved will each make their own decisions on how to proceed from the decision that was delivered.

The former Prime Minister, however, revealed that he will move on.

He noted that the court’s decision is remarkable since it forms part of the continuing conversation to the political culture Kenyans will practice.

“It is likely that today’s Court of Appeal ruling is not the end of the conversation and the parties involved will each make their own decisions on how to proceed from the decision that has been delivered today. But we feel that we have to move on,” Raila tweeted.

The court of appeal on Friday upheld the high Court ruling declaring BBI process null and void.

The Appellate judges poked holes into the whole BBI process, accusing its promoters of failing to follow the right procedure.

Justices Daniel Musinga, Roselyn Nambuye, Hannah Okwengu, Patrick Kiage, Gatembu Kairu, Fatuma Sichale and Francis Tuiyott found that the process undermined the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.

The judges outlined three major thematic areas that were highly contested including the basic structure doctrine, popular initiative and public participation.

They noted that President Uhuru Kenyatta was the initiator of the BBI and that BBI was initiated by the political elite.

August 20, 2021 0 comment

Crime & Investigations

Waititu Rushes to Supreme Court to Fight Back

by Mustafa Juma December 24, 2019

written by Mustafa Juma

Impeached Kiambu county governor Ferdinand Waititu on Monday moved to the Supreme Court to contest the decision to lock him out of office.

Waititu claims in the notice of appeal to the apex court that he is dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decision last Friday to uphold his suspension, claiming that it amounted to removing him from office through the back door.

“Being dissatisfied with the entire decision of the Appellate Court, the applicant is seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention to enforce his rights as an elected governor and those of Kiambu people who stand to suffer if the decision is not overturned,” read the notice of appeal.

Appellate Judges Daniel Musinga, Agnes Murgor and Gatembu Kairu on Friday upheld a High Court decision, which suspended Waititu and Samburu Governor Moses Lenolkulal from office after they were charged with embezzling public funds.

Also Read: Blow to Governor Lenolkulal as DPP Demands Cancellation of His Bond

The governor was charged in July with conspiracy to steal Sh58 million from Kiambu County during the award of a Sh588 million tender for roads construction.

He was charged alongside his wife Susan Wangari Ndun’gu, former County Chief Officer for Roads Luka Mwangi, businessman Charles Chege and his wife Beth Wangeci as well as six county employees.

The trial magistrate then barred Waititu from accessing his office as a condition for being released on bail.

The ruling was upheld by High Court Judge Grace Ngenye who declared that the governor should not set foot in the county offices until the corruption case is concluded.

Judges Musinga, Murgor and Gatembu ruled that public interest outweighed the two governors’ individual rights to access their offices.

“We find nothing wrong with the lower court’s decision to bar the governors from accessing their offices. As much as it will be inconveniencing to them, we find that it is necessary to impose the conditions to safeguard public resources and the court’s integrity,” ruled the judges.

According to the judges, it would be wrong to allow Waititu to set foot in the same offices he is accused of committing the crimes and interact with the same witnesses, who are his junior staff, scheduled to testify against him.

On the issue of a vacuum being witnessed at the counties due to the governors’ absence, the judges stated that the constitution already has a provision for deputy governors to take over functions of running county affairs in the absence of their bosses.

“There is absolutely no fear of vacuum in leadership in the absence of a governor. We have had instances where the governor is having ill-health and their deputies take over. The law provides that the deputies can run the affairs if the governor is absent,” ruled the judges.

December 24, 2019 0 comment