Lady Justice Mary Ang’awa says she was condemned unheard and vetting board based its decision on discredited evidence. Photo/FILE NATION MEDIA GROUP
By PAUL OGEMBA pogemba@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Monday, May 20 2013 at 18:16
Posted Monday, May 20 2013 at 18:16
A former judge found unsuitable to continue serving in the Judiciary has challenged the decision and wants to be reinstated.
Lady Justice Mary Ang’awa is seeking to have the decision of the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board quashed, claiming that she was condemned unheard and that the board based its decision on discredited evidence.
She wants orders stopping the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Attorney-General from publishing a gazette notice of her dismissal, blocking her salary and privileges or doing anything that will affect her rights until her case is determined.
“The whole decision and determination of the board did not meet the requisite standards for removal of a judge. There was no evidence to make them declare me unfit to continue serving in the Judiciary since the members were not independent and kept on shifting goalposts,” she said.
Lady Justice Ang’awa was one of the six High Court judges shown the door by the vetting board for allegedly bringing the Judiciary into disrepute.
The board found her manner of handling litigants and lawyers wanting, ruling that her conduct was rigid and obsessive.
One complaint was that she had scorned a doctor and told him he had appeared before her in a “bush shirt”.
The doctor had gone to testify before the judge as an expert, but she derided him for failing to appear in a suit.
After testifying, the doctor left the court but he later received summons requiring him to appear the next day to explain why he should not be punished for contempt by leaving the court without the judge’s permission.
When he appeared before her the next day dressed in a suit, the judge made him sit in her court for six hours.
Another complaint was that she ordered the arrest of a lawyer over his failure to appear for delivery of judgments. The board said the conduct was unacceptable and dismissed her from the Judiciary.
But Lady Justice Ang’awa disputes the board’s findings in her pleadings, saying it relied on hearsay evidence.
She said the finding that she kept the doctor waiting for six hours was a lie. She said the doctor only appeared before her on the first day and was kept waiting for only two hours because his lawyer had not informed her of his presence.
No comments:
Post a Comment