High Court halts sacking of two judges

Lady Justice Murugi Mugo addresses a meeting. Photo/FILE  NATION MEDIA GROUP

By PAUL OGEMBA pogemba@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted  Monday, June 24  2013 at  16:37

The High Court has temporarily stopped the removal of two judges found unsuitable to continue serving in Judiciary. Read (Vetting Board dismisses appeals by five judges)

Lady Justice Mumbi Ngugi on Monday issued orders restraining the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) from sacking Mr Justice Leonard Njagi and Lady Justice Murugi Mugo until their petitions challenging their dismissal are heard and determined.

“It is in the interest of justice that I allow the petitioners to seek a review of their sacking and in the meantime restrain the JSC from removing them from office, stopping their salary or doing anything prejudicial to them until the suits are determined,” she ruled.

She directed the files be placed before Chief Justice Willy Mutunga to constitute three-judge benches to review the decisions of by the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board to sack the two court officers.

Judges Mugo and Njagi join Lady Justice Mary Ang’awa and Mr Justice Muga Apondi who have also obtained orders barring their dismissal.

Judge Njagi was shown the door due to lack of integrity over a complaint that he facilitated illegal transfer of land owned by the Kenya School of Law to a private company, Rockville Ltd, in which he was a director.

He allegedly wrote to the Commissioner of Lands in his capacity as the Principal of KSL and confirmed that the property was available for allocation.

The judge, however, disputed the facts, arguing that he had never been a director of Rockville Ltd.

He accused the board of having preconceived perceptions to sack him since it did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate the alleged transfer of the land or how it was effected.

He argued that the board reached its decision based on speculation rather than concrete evidence.

Judge Mugo was declared unsuitable due to her conduct towards lawyers and litigants. The board found evidence on complaints that she was unethically discourteous to lawyers.

However, she claims the board condemned her unheard, and that it conducted her vetting after its mandate had expired.

“The board failed throughout to approach the vetting objectively and on the contrary, it seems to have had preconceived perceptions not supported by any evidence,” swore Judge Mugo.