[2000] KEHC 527 (KLR)

[2000] KEHC 527 (KLR)

The court held that the Chief Justice, in making the orders and rulings in HCCC No. 418 of 1998, was acting in a judicial capacity, not as an administrative head of the judiciary. As such, his decisions are protected by judicial immunity under section 6 of the Judicature Act and cannot be challenged by way of mandamus or judicial review. The application was therefore incompetent in law. Furthermore, at the material time, there was insufficient material to warrant the Chief Justice referring the matter of Justice Kuloba's removal to the President under section 62(5) of the Constitution. The proper course was the referral to the Attorney General for investigation under section 26(4) of the...

Citation
[2000] KEHC 527 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic (ex-parte Law Society of Kenya); Respondent: Chief Justice The Hon. Zacchaeus Chesoni
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 April 2000
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Cause 100 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Order of Mandamus
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Mandamus, Judicial Immunity, Removal of Judges
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Mandamus Judicial Immunity Removal of Judges

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic (ex-parte Law Society of Kenya)

Applicant

Chief Justice The Hon. Zacchaeus Chesoni

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Order of Mandamus

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order of mandamus can issue against the Chief Justice in respect of a judicial decision.
  2. 2 Whether the Chief Justice was acting in a judicial or administrative capacity when making the impugned orders.
  3. 3 Whether the application is competent under Order LIII of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Law Reform Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Chief Justice, in making the orders and rulings in HCCC No. 418 of 1998, was acting in a judicial capacity, not as an administrative head of the judiciary. As such, his decisions are protected by judicial immunity under section 6 of the Judicature Act and cannot be challenged by way of mandamus or judicial review. The application was therefore incompetent in law. Furthermore, at the material time, there was insufficient material to warrant the Chief Justice referring the matter of Justice Kuloba's removal to the President under section 62(5) of the Constitution. The proper course was the referral to the Attorney General for investigation under section 26(4) of the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application by the Law Society of Kenya is dismissed with costs.