[2015] KEHC 6949 (KLR)
The court held that the mention before Lenaola, J on 21st November, 2014 satisfied the Supreme Court's directive that the matter be mentioned within 15 days of its judgment. There was no requirement that the mention be before the full bench or that the matter be disposed of within that period. The application for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 6949 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Hon. Lady Justice Jeanne W Gacheche; Respondent: The Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Board; Respondent: Judicial Service Commission
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 295 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Directions and Adjournment
- Outcome
- Application for adjournment allowed; directions on hearing issued.
- Judges
- I Lenaola, EM Ngugi, P Nyamweya, GV Odunga, DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Vetting, Jurisdiction of Vetting Board, Supreme Court Orders, Judicial Review Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Hon. Lady Justice Jeanne W Gacheche
Applicant
The Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Board
Respondent
Judicial Service Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Directions and Adjournment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proceedings on 21st November, 2014 constituted the mention contemplated by the Supreme Court to be undertaken within 15 days.
- 2 Whether the hearing of the matter ought to be adjourned.
- 3 What issues will fall for determination at the hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the mention before Lenaola, J on 21st November, 2014 satisfied the Supreme Court's directive that the matter be mentioned within 15 days of its judgment. There was no requirement that the mention be before the full bench or that the matter be disposed of within that period. The application for adjournment was merited given that related matters were not before the court. The court further directed that the issue for determination would be the import and impact of the Supreme Court judgment on the pending High Court proceedings. The hearing would proceed by oral and/or written submissions at the parties' option, with no affidavits to be admitted, and the matter was...
Court Disposition
Application for adjournment allowed; directions on hearing issued.
Orders
- The mention on 21st November, 2014 before Lenaola, J is deemed to have satisfied the Supreme Court's directive.
- Application for adjournment of today's hearing is allowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
43 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
JR NO. 295 OF 2012 (AS CONSOLIDATED)
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BY HON. LADY JUSTICE JEANNE GACHECHE.
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE VETTING OF JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES ACT NO. 2 OF 2011
HON LADY JUSTICE JEANNE W GACHECHE …….….....…………. APPLICANT
AND
THE VETTING OF JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES BOARD .....1ST RESPONDENT
JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION…………………….…..... 2ND RESPONDENT
&
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL …………………………........…. INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. What triggered today’s proceedings was a decision made by the Supreme Court in Petition Nos. 13A, 14 and 15 all of 2013 delivered on 5th November, 2014 in which the said Court directed inter alia that:
The respective Superior Court Divisions or Stations having to adjudicate upon matters of any of the following categories shall list them for mention within 15 days of the date hereof, and shall dispose of them forthwith, in accordance with the terms of this judgement and these orders, that is to say:
(i) Alleged lack of jurisdiction or merit on the part of the Vetting Board;
(ii) Alleged want of exclusive competence of the Vetting Board to determine the suitability of a Judge or Magistrate to continue in service;
(iii) Any contest to the vetting Board’s process (or outcome thereof) for determining the suitability of a Judge or Magistrate in service.
2. Pursuant to the said order, this matter together with the related matters were mentioned before Hon. Mr Justice Lenaola, who was appointed by the Hon. The Chief Justice to preside over the five Judge bench empaneled to hear and determine the same on 21st November, 2014 on which date directions were given.
3. When the matter came up before us this morning we heard learned counsel for the parties on the mode of proceeding and in our view the following issues fall for determination:
1) Whether the proceedings which took place on 21st November, 2014 was the mention contemplated by the Supreme Court in the above decision to be undertaken within 15 days.
2) Whether the hearing of this matter ought to be adjourned.
3) What issues will fall for determination at the hearing.
4) What should be the mode of hearing.
5) When should the matter be heard.
4. On the first issue, we are clear in our mind that the Supreme Court did not direct that the pending matters be heard and disposed of within the fifteen days. What the said Court ordered was that the matter be mentioned within the said period for purposes of proceeding with the disposition. Such disposition in our view could take place either on the same day or any date soon thereafter. On 21st November, 2014 the matter was listed before Lenaola, J who gave appropriate directions. Accordingly, it is our view that it was unnecessary at that point in time that the matter be mentioned before the full bench as empaneled. We therefore hold that today’s sitting was not the mention contemplated by the Supreme Court when it directed that the matter be mentioned within 15 days. That mention took place on 21st November, 2014 hence there is no need to refer this matter to the Supreme Court to extend time.
5. On the second issue we have considered the submissions made by learned counsel including the fact that other matters which are related to these matters are not before us. We accordingly are of the view and hold that the application for adjournment of today’s hearing is merited.
6. On the third issue, we direct that the issue which will fall for determination in these matters is the issue identified by Lenaola, J on 21st November, 2014 with respect to import and impact of the Supreme Court judgement delivered on 5th November, 2014 on the proceedings pending before the High Court.
7. On the fourth issue we direct that the hearing will be conducted by way of oral and/or written submissions at the option of counsel for the parties and that no affidavit will be admitted at the hearing.
8. Lastly, we direct that the matter be heard on 22nd January, 2015 at 10. am.
9. It is so ordered.
Ruling read, signed and delivered in court this 15th day of January 2015
I LENAOLA
JUDGE
MUMBI NGUGI
JUDGE
P NYAMWEYA
JUDGE
G V ODUNGA
JUDGE
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE