Home Tags Posts tagged with "High Court"
Tag:

High Court

Politics

Why President Uhuru Has Moved To Court Of Appeal

by Yahil Felix
written by Yahil Felix

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.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinTumblrWhatsappTelegramEmail
Latest NewsPolitics

High Court Reveals What Chief Justice Will Do If President Uhuru Does Not Appoint Judges Within 14 Days

by Yahil Felix
written by Yahil Felix

The High Court has ordered President Uhuru Kenyatta to appoint the six judges he left out in June last year within 14 days.

According to Justices William Musyoka, James Wakiaga and George Dulu, the president does not have power to change the list of judges recommended by the Judicial Service Commission.

The judges also have ordered the president to pay the cost of the suit saying he went against the constitution and the Judicial Service Commission Act when he rejected the judges.

“The constitution commands the president t appoint the Judges upon receiving their name and has repeatedly said their is no discretion on his part to select a partial list of names,” ruled the judges.

The judges ruled that failure to appoint the six judges, they will be deemed to be duly appointed and the Chief Justice in conjunction with the Judicial Service Commission will be free to take all the necessary steps to swear them in

The three bench judges noted that there was a constitutional duty cast on the president to appoint the judges once their names are forwarded to him by JSC and that duty was owed to Kenyans in general as the appointments are meant to benefit all.

The petition had been filed by Katiba Institute challenging the partial appointment of the partial list of the 41 judges by the president.

The institute argued that the selective appointment by Uhuru would undermine the functions and powers of the Judicial Service Commission and the functioning of the judiciary.

The president had refused to gazette or appoint the recommended judges until June 3 when he appointed 34 judges out of the recommended 41 nominees.

Those that were left out were: Justices George Vincent Odunga, Joel Mwaura Ngugi, Weldon Kipyegon Korir, Aggrey Muchelule Otsyula, and Magistrates Evans Makori Kiago and Judith Elizabeth Omange Cheruiyot.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinTumblrWhatsappTelegramEmail
Others

Huduma Namba Roll Out Stopped, Court Declares It Illegal

by Yahil Felix
written by Yahil Felix

High Court sitting on Tuesday morning rejected the decision by the state to roll out Huduma number cards ruling out that it was illegal.

Justice Jairus Ngaah during his ruling faulted the government for not conducting a data protection impact assessment before rolling out Huduma Number cards last year.

The High Court Has also ordered the government to carry out an impact assessment before rolling out the Huduma cards.

“Order of mandamus is hereby issued compelling the government to conduct a data protection impact assessment in accordance with Section 31 of the data protection act before processing of data and rolling out the Huduma cards,” ordered the judge.

This decision comes after Katiba Institute and law scholar Yash Pal Ghai challenged the roll out of the cards over lack of guarantees of theft of misuse of Kenyans’ personal information.

The lobby group and Yash Pal Ghai argued that the state failed to subject the fresh registration of Kenyans to data protection impact assessment (DPIA) which is a requirement under the law.

The assessment’s objectives is to flag risks that could reveal breaches of privacy, loss of data and unlawful use of information like names, date of birth, post codes and residences.

Currently, majority of Kenyans have received Huduma Namba cards after its roll out. The current national identity cards will be invalidated on December this year.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinTumblrWhatsappTelegramEmail
Politics

Raila Breaks His Silence On BBI Ruling, Reveals Next Move

by Mustafa Juma
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.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinTumblrWhatsappTelegramEmail
Politics

High Court Stops Waiguru’s Impeachment Motion

by Pauline Waswa
written by Pauline Waswa

The High Court has temporarily stopped an impeachment motion tabled against Kirinyaga County governor Anne Waiguru, pending petition determination.

The High Court was on April 6 expected to rule whether the Kirinyaga County Assembly will continue with its sittings.

MCAs Maureen Muthoni and Raphael Kariuki wanted the court to stop the sittings in bid to stop the spread the virus. The MCAs, through lawyer Steve Ogolla,argue that in the absence of urgent and exceptional business directly related to the Covid-19 pandemic, there is no rational justification for the assembly to resume sittings.

The county reps’ decision to move to court was informed by the action by the assembly speaker to recall them from recess to discuss the impeachment motion against governor Waiguru.

In the impeachment motion filed on Tuesday last week, the MCAs  accuse the governor of gross violation of the Constitution by among others not delivering the annual state of the county address to the assembly.

Muthoni and Kariuki argued that reconvening the assembly in the middle of the coronavirus crisis poses a real and imminent danger of new infections to the MCAs, staff and the public that interact in the assembly.

 Ogolla submitted before Justice Weldon Korir that the court should direct the speaker to ensure adequate arrangements have been put in place to protect the members, staff and public from coronavirus infection.

The two fear that reconvening the assembly in the middle of the coronavirus crisis poses a real and imminent danger of new infections.

 According to them, the assembly was adjourned on March 18 over the coronavirus situation in the country.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinTumblrWhatsappTelegramEmail
Lifestyle

VIDEO: How Rastafarians Celebrated Friday High Court ruling

by Mustafa Juma
written by Mustafa Juma

This comes after a student’s parents represented by Lawyer Shadrack Wambui moved to court after their student admitted at Olympique High school in January 2019 was expelled for refusing to shave her dreadlocks which she had during her primary school .

In his ruling the presiding Judge noted that every child’s right to basic education is protected by the constitution and every parent has a legal responsibility to take their children to school.

“No person should be compelled contrary to their religion, a declaration is issued that the decision of Olympic school keeping the minor out of school due to her dreadlocks was unconstitutional, null and void,” he said

“Keeping rastas is her way of professing her faith and it’s wrong to compel her to shave which is against her religion.”

The minor indicated in her admission form that her religion was Rastafarian.  The stance taken by the school is contrary to the law.

The father in the suit papers says the action of the school amounts to discrimination on the basis of her Rastafarian beliefs.

Article 30 (1) of the Constitution states that every person has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.

He further directed the school not infringe on the rights of the minor when she is recalled back to the school.

This is how the Rastas celebrated.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinTumblrWhatsappTelegramEmail
Load More Posts