[2020] KEHC 9225 (KLR)

Mboya & another v Judicial Service Commission & another; Rawal & 5 others (Interested Parties) (Petition 204 & 218 of 2016 (Consolidated)) [2020] KEHC 9225 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (14 May 2020) (Judgment)

Apollo Mboya v Judicial Service Commission & another;Justice Kalpana Rawal & 4 (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR

Neutral citation: [2020] KEHC 9225 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Constitutional and Human Rights

Petition 204 & 218 of 2016 (Consolidated)

WK Korir, J

May 14, 2020

Between

Apollo Mboya

Petitioner

and

The Judicial Service Commission

1st Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

2nd Respondent

and

Justice Kalpana Rawal

Interested Party

Justice Philip Tunoi

Interested Party

Justice Mohammed Ibrahim

Interested Party

Justice Jackton B Ojwang

Interested Party

Justice Njoki Susanna Ndung’u

Interested Party

As consolidated with

Petition 218 of 2016

Between

Hon. Lady Justice Njoki S. Ndung’u

Petitioner

and

The Judicial Service Commission

Respondent

and

Apollo Mboya

Interested Party

Judgment

1. This judgment speaks to Constitutional Petition No. 204 of 2016 and Constitutional Petition No. 218 of 2016 which were consolidated by an order issued by the Court on 7th June, 2016.

2. Apollo Mboya who is the Petitioner in Petition No. 204 of 2016 is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya. The 1st Respondent, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) is a constitutional commission established under Article 171 of the Constitution. The 2nd Respondent is the Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya. The Office of the Attorney General is established under Article 156(1) of the Constitution and mandated by Article 156(4) to be the principal legal adviser to the Government. The functions of the Attorney General include the representation of the national government in court or in any other legal proceedings to which the national government is a party, other than criminal proceedings. The Attorney General is a member of the JSC pursuant to Article 171(2)(e) of the Constitution. Justice Kalpana Rawal, Justice Philip Tunoi, Justice Mohammed Ibrahim, Justice Jackton B. Ojwang and Justice Njoki Susanna Ndungu, the respective 1st to 5th interested parties were all judges of the Supreme Court of Kenya at the time of the institution of the petition. Justice Kalpana Rawal was at the same time the Deputy Chief Justice (DCJ) of the Republic of Kenya. Justices Kalpana Rawal, Philip Tunoi and Jackton B. Ojwang have since retired from judicial duty.

3. Hon. Lady Justice Njoki S. Ndung’u who is the 5th Interested Party in Petition No. 204 of 2016 is the Petitioner in Petition No. 218 of 2016. The JSC which is the 1st Respondent in Petition No. 204 of 2016 is the sole Respondent. Mr. Apollo Mboya who is the Petitioner in Petition No. 204 of 2016 is the Interested Party.

4. The consolidated petitions revolve around the dramatic events that took place from September, 2015 in respect of the question of the retirement age of the judges of the superior courts of Kenya who were in office when the current Constitution came into force in 2010. Those happenings led to a petition to the JSC dated 9th October, 2015 supported by additional grounds dated 21st October, 2015 in which Mr. Apollo Mboya sought the removal from office of Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Prof. Jackton B. Ojwang and Njoki Susanna Ndung’u for alleged violation of the Constitution. The proceedings before the JSC culminated in the admonition of the Judges.

5. Justice Njoki Susanna Ndung’u has placed her admonition letter dated 9th May, 2016 before this court in which the JSC addressed her as follows:-“re: Petition By Mr Apollo Mboya For Your Removal From Office As A Judge Of The Supreme Court Of Kenya.The above matter refers.The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) considered the Petition filed against you by Mr. Apollo Mboya and your response to the Petition. Upon review of the material and information placed before it, the Judicial Service Commission came to the conclusion that your conduct was indeed unbecoming of a Judge of the Supreme Court and amounts to misconduct.However, the JSC determined that the said misconduct, did not meet the requisite threshold to warrant a recommendation for the appointment of a Tribunal for your removal in terms of Article 168(1) and (4) of the Constitution and resolved that you be admonished for this misconduct.This therefore is to convey the above decision of the Commission and to further inform you that the allegations against your honour as contained in the additional grounds filed by the Petitioner on 21st October, 2015 is still under the Commission’s consideration and the outcome shall be communicated.”

(B.) The Prayers In The Consolidated Petition 6. Mr. Apollo Mboya was disappointed by the decision and wrote to the JSC on 13th May, 2016 threatening legal action if he was not provided with certain information. The JSC did not respond to the letter and on 20th May, 2016, Mr. Apollo Mboya acted on his threat by filing the petition dated the same date seeking reliefs as follows:-“a)A Declaration that upon the determination by the 1st Respondent of misconduct against judges, the 1st Respondent is under a mandatory constitutional duty to forward the petition to the President as required by Article 168(4) of the Constitution setting out the alleged facts constituting the grounds for the judges removal and that the refusal to do so in respect of Justice Kalpana Rawal–Deputy Chief Justice, Justice Philip Tunoi, Justice Mohammed Ibrahim, Justice Jackton B. Ojwang and Justice Njoki Susanna Ndungu is unconstitutional.b)A Declaration that upon the determination by the 1st Respondent of misconduct against judges, the 1st Respondent is not mandated and/or required to administer any other form of discipline and any such purported discipline such as admonishment is unconstitutional and is therefore null and void ab initio.c)A Declaration that the delay by the 1st Respondent to make a determination of the petition against the judges for over six (6) months and in issuing part determination and reserving other limbs of the petition to a futuristic date is unreasonable and is therefore unconstitutional.d)An order that the Commissioners of the 1st Respondent in their individual and collective capacity violated the Constitution by:(i)purporting to admonish the judges,(ii)delaying to make a determination of the petition against the judges for over six (6) months and in issuing part determination and reserving other limbs of the petition to a futuristic date,(iii)refusing, delaying, failing and/or neglecting to forward the petition to the President as required by Article 168(4) of the Constitution setting out the alleged facts constituting the grounds for the judges removal.e)An order that the Commissioners of the 1st Respondent do forthwith forward the petition to the President as required by Article 168(4) of the Constitution setting out the alleged facts constituting the grounds for removal of Justice Kalpana Rawal–Deputy Chief Justice, Justice Philip Tunoi, Justice Mohammed Ibrahim, Justice Jackton B. Ojwang and Justice Njoki Susanna Ndungu.f)Any other relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to grant.g)The Respondents be condemned to pay the costs of this petition.”

7. Hon. Lady Justice Njoki Ndung’u likewise disagreed with the decision of the JSC and filed her petition dated 26th May, 2016 in which she seeks orders as follows:-“1. An Order that this Petition be certified as urgent and heard ex parte in the first instance on the conservatory Order sought in Prayer 2 below.

2. An interim conservatory Order do issue prohibiting the JSC, its officers, servants or agents from considering, admitting to hearing or convening to hear, any further part of the JSC Petition filed by the Mr. Apollo Mboya or any matters related thereto until the issues of the jurisdiction and mandate of the JSC are heard and determined through this Petition.

3. A declaration that the JSC proceedings leading up to their decision dated 9th May 2016 were conducted in contravention of the rules of natural justice and fair process and as a consequence there was a fundamental breach of the Petitioner’s rights, particularly:-a.The right to know the case against her and;b.The right to respond to the allegations against her fully and;c.The right to a fair, defined and impartial hearing.4. An Order of Certiorari do issue to recall to the High Court and quash the decision of the JSC dated 9th May 2016 in its entirety.5. A declaration that the constitutional jurisdiction of the JSC does not extend to merit review of any matter lawfully conducted, transacted or decided by a Judge or Judicial Officer in the course of the exercise of his or her judicial authority, functions and discretion.6. A declaration that matters lawfully conducted, transacted or decided by any judicial officer, within the judicial discretion and authority of the office holder, are protected by Article 160 of the Constitution from interference or influence by any party, save for lawful appellate review where available as provided by law.7. A declaration that the decision by the JSC to purport to investigate the Petitioner on the matters raised in Mr. Apollo Mboya’s Petition as “further grounds” is unreasonable, unfair, unprocedural and unlawful on the grounds that:-a.It is ultra vires the power and authority vested in the JSC as it calls for a merit review of lawful discretionary decisions of the Petitioner in her capacity as a Judge of the Supreme Court.b.It severely undermines the independence of the Petitioner’s office under Articles 160 of the Constitution.c.It is unreasonable in the circumstances because Mr. Apollo Mboya has disclosed no particulars of a prima facie case that even remotely demonstrates the claims he has made.d.It is a breach of the principles of natural justice and the rights of the Petitioner to a fair and impartial process as enshrined in Article 47 of the Constitution.8. An Order of Mandamus do issue compelling the Judicial Service Commission to gazette regulations defining the precise procedures for Petitions in accordance with Section 47 of the Judicial Service Act within a period of three months.9. The Respondent be condemned to pay the costs of this Petition.10. Any such further Order(s) as this Honourable Court shall deem just.”

(C) Pleadings In Petition No. 204 Of 2016 8. The case of Mr. Apollo Mboya (hereinafter referred to as Mr. Mboya) as gleaned from his pleadings is that his petition to the JSC for the removal of the interested parties from office was premised on the ground that the 3rd, 4th and 5th interested parties had through a letter dated 24th September, 2015 withdrawn their services from the people of Kenya by imposing a moratorium on all judicial operations with immediate effect.

9. Another ground Mr. Mboya had given in support of the petition for removal is that the 1st and 2nd interested parties had sat in Supreme Court Petition No. 23 of 2014 Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & others (“the Salat case”) hence violating Article 75 of the Constitution which requires a State officer to behave in a manner that avoids conflict between personal interests and public or official duties, or compromises any public or official interest in favour of a personal interest.

10. It is Mboya’s case that the 2nd Interested Party had already received a letter informing him that the retirement age of judges was seventy years and had indeed instituted Nairobi Milimani High Court Petition No. 244 of 2014 against the decision of the JSC. Further, that the 1st Interested Party had received a similar letter and had indeed challenged the decision through Nairobi Milimani High Court Petition No. 386 of 2015.

11. In his complaint to the JSC, Mr. Mboya had opined that the majority decision in the Salat case had resulted in a conflict between the personal interests of the 1st and 2nd interested parties and their public or official duties. The particular finding in the Salat case which made Mr. Mboya believe that the 1st and 2nd interested parties violated the Constitution is as follows:-“….We find and hold that the Judicial Service Commission lacks competence to direct or determine how, or when, a Judge in any of the Superior Courts may perform his or her judicial duty, or when he or she may or may not sit in Court. Any direction contrary to these principles, consequently, would be contrary to the terms of the Constitution which unequivocally safeguards the independence of Judges. It follows that the said directive concerning Judges of the Superior Courts, issued by the Judicial Service Commission, is a nullity in law.”

12. It is Mr. Mboya’s case before this Court over six months after he filed his complaint with the JSC, he received a letter dated 9th May, 2016 from the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary and the Secretary of the JSC informing him that the JSC had made a determination that the 3rd, 4th and 5th interested parties had misconducted themselves and the JSC had admonished them.

13. According to Mr. Mboya, a reading of the Constitution gives the impression that “discipline” as opposed to “removal” is not contemplated for judges. Reliance is placed on Article 168 of the Constitution and Part V of the Judicial Service Act, 2011 (“the JS Act”) in support of the assertion.

14. It is Mr. Mboya’s case that the issue for determination in his petition is whether the JSC having arrived at a determination of misconduct had any other option apart from recommending to the President to form a tribunal under Article 168(4) of the Constitution. He holds the view that the delay of over six months in making a decision on his complaint and the decision to admonish the Judges was unreasonable and unconstitutional. Further, that upon making a determination of misconduct against a judge, the JSC is left with no other option but to send the petition to the President in writing, setting out the alleged facts constituting the grounds for removal of the concerned judge in accordance to Article 168(2), (3) and (4) of the Constitution.

15. It is Mr. Mboya’s averment that in purporting to exercise non-existent disciplinary powers the JSC exhibited impunity and acted unconstitutionally. Additionally, that the piecemeal determination of his petition by the JSC and reservation of other limbs for a futuristic determination is a violation of the Constitution. 16. Mr. Mboya asserts that the decision to admonish the 3rd, 4th and 5th interested parties instead of forwarding his petition to the President is a grave act of discrimination and is therefore unconstitutional taking into account that other judges have been recommended for removal. Further, that the action of the JSC amounts to failure to protect public interest.

17. The JSC’s opposition to the consolidated petitions is through a replying affidavit sworn on 24th June, 2016 by Anne Amadi, the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary as well as the Secretary of the JSC, and a further replying affidavit sworn on 7th August, 2017 by Dr. Willy Mutunga who was the Chief Justice of Kenya, the Chair of the JSC and the President of the Supreme Court of Kenya from June 2011 to 16th June, 2016.

18. In her affidavit, Amadi states the functions of the JSC under Article 172 of the Constitution and the JS Act. She also highlights the guiding principles as found in Article 10, chapters four, six, ten, fifteen and seventeen of the Constitution, and the JS Act. Amadi avers that the JSC is an important bulwark and safeguard for both the independence and accountability of the Judiciary. The JSC, she deposes, plays an important role of preserving judicial officers from spurious and whimsical allegations as well as considering more serious allegations and determining whether any misconduct has occurred.

19. Turning to the facts of the case, Amadi avers that in the course of discharging its functions and performance of its duties, the JSC published several memos and circulars on the question of the retirement age of judges pursuant to Article 167(1) of the Constitution. She states that the decision was reached after the JSC sought views from various experts, including from its own members and other members of the Judiciary and concluded that the retirement age of all judges is seventy years. It is her averment that the memo issued on 27th March, 2014 declaring the retirement age of judges as seventy years was preceded by a special memorandum placed before the Chief Justice on 17th January, 2014 by affected Judges of the Supreme Court and followed by a subsequent memo dated 17th April, 2014.

20. According to Amadi, subsequent to the publication of the memo on the retirement age of judges, the 1st and 2nd interested parties filed constitutional petitions seeking interpretation of the retirement age of the judges appointed under the former Constitution. She avers that in a judgment delivered on 11th December, 2015 five Judges of the High Court agreed with the JSC on the retirement age and the decision was affirmed on appeal by seven Judges of the Court of Appeal in a judgment delivered on 27th May, 2016.

21. Amadi avers that on the afternoon of 27th May, 2016 the 5th Interested Party stayed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The stay was vacated by a panel of five Judges of the Supreme Court and the panel thereafter disqualified itself from substantively dealing with the matter on account of conflict of interest. Her averment therefore is that the Court of Appeal judgment stood and at the time of swearing her affidavit the 1st and 2nd interested parties had retired.

22. It is Amadi’s deposition that as the court cases were going through the adjudication process, various actions were undertaken by several Supreme Court Judges touching directly or indirectly on the question of the retirement age of judges. One of the actions was the issuance of a memo dated 24th September, 2015 by the 3rd, 4th and 5th interested parties protesting a directive by the JSC requiring judges aged over 70 years to cease sitting and hearing any matter until a suit pending in Court was heard and determined. The parting shot in the memo was that “illegitimate interference with the work of the Court, or its seven members will necessitate moratorium on all its judicial operations with immediate effect.”

23. According to Amadi, another course of action taken by the said Judges of the Supreme Court was the holding by the majority of the Supreme Court Judges in the Salat case that “the Judicial Service Commission lacks competence to direct or determine how or when a Judge in any of the Superior Courts may perform his or her judicial duty, or when he or she may or may not sit in Court.”

24. Amadi avers that following the petition by Mr. Mboya for the removal from office of the interested parties through a petition dated 9th October, 2015 and additional grounds dated 21st October, 2015, the JSC deliberated on the complaint and having considered that it raised matters within the purview of the Commission asked the Judges to respond to the allegations. This, she said, was in compliance with the Judges’ right to be heard. Further, that each of the Judges appointed a lawyer, and requested for further and better particulars from Mr. Mboya. She avers that Mr. Mboya did indeed respond to the request for particulars and the information was forwarded to the respective Judges by letters dated 8th February, 2016.

25. Amadi deposes that each Judge filed a response with Justice Mohammed Ibrahim filing his on 2nd November, 2015. Justice Jackton Ojwang filed his response on 10th November, 2015 and a further response on 19th February, 2016. Justice NJoki Ndung’u filed a replying affidavit on 23rd February, 2016.

26. It is Amadi’s deposition that in a meeting held on 29th February, 2016, the JSC resolved to set up a special committee to hear the petition by Mr. Mboya and the Judges were advised accordingly.

27. Amadi states that the right to fair administrative action does not always require an oral hearing, but depending on the circumstances in question, access to justice and hearing can be afforded by way of written representations. She avers that in the event of a possible finding of gross misconduct, or other substantial finding that could result in the setting up of a tribunal to investigate a judge, it would be good practice but not mandatory for the right to fair administrative action to incorporate an opportunity to be heard orally in addition to the comprehensive written submissions.

28. It is Amadi’s opinion that it would be impractical and unreasonable, if, even small or minor complaints or infractions of whatever nature required the setting up of formal and oral hearing structures. She is firm that a hearing in writing in matters that give rise to a warning letter or an admonition complies with the right to fair administrative action. She further testifies that she is aware that the Constitution provides that in cases of allegation against a judge, the forum for the full exercise of the right to fair hearing is in the tribunal appointed upon recommendation of the JSC under Article 168(4) & (5) of the Constitution.

29. Amadi deposes that the JSC upon considering the petition of Mr. Mboya and the responses of the Judges came to the conclusion that the conduct of the Judges was indeed unbecoming of them and amounted to misconduct. Her averment is that the JSC nevertheless determined that the said misconduct did not meet the threshold to warrant a recommendation for appointment of a tribunal because it did not constitute gross misconduct. She states that this finding was communicated to Mr. Mboya and the Judges through the letters dated 9th May, 2016. It is Amadi’s evidence that by the time she swore her affidavit, the additional grounds against the 3rd, 4th and 5th interested parties, which also served as a removal petition against Justices Rawal and Tunoi, had not been determined by the JSC.

30. Amadi makes specific reference to Petition No. 204 of 2016 and avers that the same touches on issues collateral to the dispute revolving around the retirement age of judges which issue had been litigated to conclusion before the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

31. It is Amadi’s averment that the JSC has power under Article 168(1) of the Constitution to consider if any complaint against a judge meets the threshold for the grounds of the removal of judges and the “issues raised in Mr. Apollo Mboya’s Petition are not among those as envisaged in the aforesaid Article.”

32. According to Amadi, the JSC “has a right to recommend basic human resource measures to ensure judicial accountability that do not amount to interference with the independence of judges.” She stresses that in order to preserve the independence of the Judiciary, the Constitution, and international best practices, the removal of a judge ought to be for serious gross misconduct and incapacity to discharge the mandate of the venerable office of a judge and not for small claims to which all are susceptible but which have no bearing whatsoever on the performance of the duties of a judge.

33. Amadi indicates that the Judicial Code of Conduct Bill, 2016 which was before Parliament at the time she made her affidavit proposed means and ways that the JSC can use to admonish judges for acts of misconduct not amounting to gross misconduct. 34. On the allegation by Mr. Mboya that the six months the JSC took before determining his petition was unreasonable and unconstitutional, Amadi replies that in exercising its jurisdiction the JSC is not limited to any identifiable timelines and by virtue of Article 259(8) of the Constitution, the jurisdiction is exercised without unreasonable delay and depending on the circumstances of each case. Further, that the JSC operated under a heavy workload and demanding conditions and had acted with reasonable promptness in the matters in question.

35. Specifically responding to Petition No. 218 of 2016, Amadi testifies that the JSC has not made a determination on the additional grounds filed Mr. Mboya but the JSC intended to provide Justice Njoki Ndung’u with an opportunity to be heard in the event the allegations were considered to be grave enough as to possibly warrant removal. Her averment is that the JSC intended to fully comply with the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act and the petition was therefore premature and unfounded.

36. Amadi denies the allegation that the actions of the JSC amounts to merits review of a judicial decision, stating that the JSC does not even have the capacity to conduct a merits review of judicial decisions. She, however, states that judicial misconduct may include matters that take place during actual judicial proceedings, for example drunkenness of a judicial officer in court or conduct unbecoming of a judge.

37. It is Amadi’s testimony that the constitutional responsibility for determining the merits of any claim of judicial misconduct lies with the JSC and not with the courts and Justice Njoki Ndung’u is therefore wrong in attempting to shift the locus for the determination of the particular misconduct claims in the additional grounds to this Court. Further, that the Constitution provides that the merits of any removal petition against a judge be determined by a tribunal to be appointed by the President, with the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

38. Still responding to Petition No. 218 of 2016, Amadi deposes that the Court should not interrogated the Confidential Minutes of a Meeting of Supreme Court Judges held on 6th October, 2015 as to do so would open up confidential proceedings of the judges of the Supreme Court to interrogation by this Court. Further, that any review of such matters is appropriate for the JSC, which is capable of manifesting and respecting judicial independence and accountability during its proceedings. She consequently urges the Court to dismiss the consolidated petitions.

39. In his affidavit the former Chief Justice, Dr. Willy Mutunga (hereinafter Dr. Mutunga) associates himself with the replying affidavit of Amadi. Dr. Mutunga’s entry point is that the JSC is empowered by the Preamble and Articles 10, 249, 252 and 259 of the Constitution to interpret and apply the Constitution while it implements its roles and functions. His deposition is that in the exercise of its interpretive mandate, the JSC concluded that it can deal with all complaints of misconduct lodged against judges, including complaints that eventually disclose a ground for seeking removal of a judge or a ground which upon enquiry and review only discloses lower level of judicial misconduct that still requires some form of disciplinary action.

40. Dr. Mutunga makes specific averments on the events that eventually led to the disciplinary proceedings against the interested parties. On the Supreme Court conference that took place on 22nd September, 2015, Dr. Mutunga avers that conferencing of Judges at the Supreme Court was always about discussion of judicial matters that had been heard and were pending for judgment with the purpose of determining possible verdict on the said cases. He asserts that judicial conferencing was purely about judicial and not administrative matters. The discussions were privileged and confidential and no formal minutes would be taken. Further, that the Registrar of the Court and the Judges’ law clerks would not participate in the judicial conferencing.

41. Dr. Mutunga concedes that casual but not substantial discussions about administrative issues could occasionally take place on the sidelines of a judicial conference. However, substantive discussions on administrative matters were always preceded by a formal agenda prepared by the Registrar of the Supreme Court, and she was responsible for taking minutes. His averment is that administrative matters included issues such as discussion of cause list, pending rulings and judgments facilitation of the work of judges, and physical infrastructure. Dr. Mutunga states that he does not recall any such elaborate formal and comprehensive discussion on the 22nd September, 2015 as depicted by the affidavits of Justices Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u, and such would have been quite out of character with the nature and practice of judicial conferencing.

42. It is Dr. Mutunga’s averment that some of the Supreme Court Judges had raised concerns with the directive of the JSC in regard to the sitting by Justice Tunoi, and the question of possible quorum deficit. Together with Justice Wanjala who was a member of the JSC like him, they advised their colleagues in the Supreme Court to consider pursuing dialogue with JSC without taking any confrontational posture, since the matter involved the public interest. He states that he is certain that there was no collective decision at the conference of 22nd September, 2015 to allow three judges of the Court to threaten to down their tools or even to write to the JSC on behalf of the other Judges of the Court.

43. According to Dr. Mutunga, the question of anticipated quorum deficit would not have arisen since the Chief Justice and his Deputy are required to prioritize Court work over administrative duties, and that was the consistent practice during his tenure as the Chief Justice. He stresses that there was no decision of a collective nature during the conference to the effect that JSC was wrong in making the decision it did of 4th September, 2015 regarding the sitting of Justice Tunoi, since JSC was simply implementing its constitutional mandate.

44. In response to the averments of Justices Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u in respect of the letter addressed to the JSC on 24th September, 2015, Dr. Mutunga says that the said letter was not authorized by a collective decision of the Supreme Court, and ought to be treated as the sole work of the three signatories to it. It is his averment that the threat to initiate “a moratorium on all of [the Supreme Court’s] judicial operations with immediate effect” would have been very injurious to the public interest and would have been against the judicial oath to administer justice.

45. It is Dr. Mutunga’s evidence that the JSC held an immediate meeting to discuss the contents of the said letter, and directed the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary to immediately respond and communicate that JSC stood by its decision of 4th September, 2015, and would await the outcome of ongoing litigation on the matter. He confirms that the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary did indeed convey the decision of the JSC through a letter dated 25th September 2015, just one day after the receipt of the letter by the three Judges.

46. It is Dr. Mutunga’s testimony that he is aware that despite receiving the response of the JSC, Justices Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u acted upon their threat to down their tools thereafter, and as a consequence, the Supreme Court did not proceed with its regular sittings for about two weeks from 29th September to 15th October. He supports his averment by annexing to his affidavit a memo dated 6th April, 2016 from the Registrar of the Supreme Court which he says indicates what exactly transpired regarding the Court’s sittings in early October 2015. He also exhibits the Court’s cause list for the said period.

47. Dr. Mutunga further avers that he is aware that the Supreme Court cause list would only be issued after allocation of specific Judges to each of the scheduled matters, which could be a two Judge matter, or a full bench of five or more Judges. His recollection is that Judge Ibhrahim availed himself for possible sittings of the Supreme Court, but Justices Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u did not, hence causing various matters to be taken out.

48. Turning to the meeting by the Supreme Court Judges on 6th October, 2015, he confirms that the meeting actually took place. His evidence is that the Deputy Registrar was in attendance for the formal part of the meeting, and was the person authorized to record minutes for the meeting. He avers that he recalls very clearly that the notes taken by Justice Njoki Ndung’u for the latter portion of the said meeting were challenged in a subsequent meeting of the Judges and rejected on the ground of inaccuracy and failure to reflect the true position of the discussions they had held. His averment is that in a subsequent meeting they resolved that confidential minutes should also be taken by the Deputy Registrar to avoid recurrence of inaccurate recording by a Judge in future. He states that the minutes produced by Justice Njoki Ndung’u were never adopted as a fair and true record by the Supreme Court.

49. It is Dr. Mutunga’s averment that upon fresh review of the said minutes in respect of the meeting of 6th October, 2015 purportedly confirmed on 27th October, 2015 he holds the view that the said minutes appear suspect for the reasons that the minutes indicate that his deputy was chairing the meeting, and yet he was present and participating, which was not the normal practice; that the minutes make reference to a subsequent meeting which was to take place on 14th October, 2015, yet the signature page indicates that the minutes of the 6th October, 2015 meeting were approved much later on 27th October, 2015; and, that the contents of the minutes of the 6th October, 2015 meeting are not accurate and were never approved.

50. On his part the Attorney General replies to Petition No. 204 of 2016 through grounds of opposition dated 24th June, 2016 as follows:-a.)That the Judicial Service Commission is clothed with wide discretion under Article 168(4) of the Constitution and the Judicial Commission Act (sic) to determine on a preliminary level whether any grounds that are cited for removal of a judge from office warrant the formation of a tribunal by the President.b.)That the 1st Respondent was not legally mandated to recommend the formation of a tribunal since under Article 168 of the Constitution, a finding of misconduct is not one of the grounds for the removal of a judge from office but a finding of gross misconduct.c.)That [the] constitutional petition lacks merit and should be dismissed as the additional grounds pleaded at paragraph 13 of the petition and allegedly lodged by the Petitioner to the Judicial Service Commission as basis for removal of judges do not meet the legal muster as they touch on an error in an alleged application of law and/or misapprehension of facts which are not discipline related issues but material for appeal/review.

51. The 1st Interested Party response to Petition No. 204 of 2016 is through grounds of opposition dated 3rd June, 2016 as follows:-a.) The Petition does not disclose a cause of action against the 1st Interested Party.b.) The 2nd Respondent (sic) has not made any decision in respect of the Interested Party.c.) Absent the decision of the 2nd Respondent (sic) the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings in respect of the 1st Interested Party.d.) Further and other grounds to be canvassed at the hearing hereof.It is noted that apart filing the said grounds of opposition, the 1st Interested Party did not participate in the hearing of the consolidated petitions.

52. The 2nd Interested Party did not file any response to Petition No. 204 of 2016.

53. The 3rd Interested Party’s reply to the petition of Mr. Mboya is through a replying affidavit sworn on 6th July, 2016. His averment is that misconduct is not a ground for removal of a judge from office as the only grounds for removing a judge from office are those listed in Article 168(1) of the Constitution. Although the 3rd Interested Party expresses his disagreement with the JSC’s finding of misconduct as communicated to him through the letter dated 9th May, 2016, he nevertheless avers that a finding of misconduct is not the same as a finding of gross misconduct and the JSC could not therefore refer the matter to the President since no ground was disclosed under Article 168(1) of the Constitution. In his view, once the JSC found that no ground for removal had been established, it should have let the matter rest, as it had no power to admonish him as it purported to do.

54. It is also 3rd Interested Party’s case that the JSC’s decision dated 9th May, 2016 is not supported by any material or evidence and does not disclose the reasons for the decision as required under Section 19 of the Second Schedule to the JS Act. He asserts that he was therefore not aware of the basis of the decision and the purported disciplinary measure inflicted on him by the JSC.

55. The 3rd Interested Party therefore takes the position that prayers (a), (d)(iii) and (e) of Mr . Mboya’s should not be granted for the reasons that no ground under Article 168(1) of the Constitution was established against him to warrant the referral of the petition to the President by the JSC; that delay by the JSC in forwarding the petition to the President does not arise as the required threshold under Article 168(4) of the Constitution was not met; and, that the alleged misconduct established by the JSC does not meet the requisite threshold for purposes of Article 168(4) of the Constitution; and, that this Court in any event has no jurisdiction to substitute its decision with that of the JSC.

56. As regards Petition No. 218 of 2016, the 3rd Interested Party declines to respond to it on the ground that it does not relate to him.

57. The 4th Interested Party filed a replying affidavit dated 6th June, 2016 and a further affidavit dated 30th October, 2017. Through the replying affidavit, the 4th Interested Party avers that all the Judges of the Supreme Court held a meeting on 22nd September, 2015 to discuss the 4th September, 2015 directive by the JSC that all judges who had attained the age of seventy years should not be allowed to participate in any hearings or further court proceedings with immediate effect. He says that the meeting reached the unanimous decision that the directive of the JSC was outside its mandate and plainly unconstitutional since the Constitution had a clear procedure on when, how and who can suspend a judge from sitting.

58. According to the 4th Interested Party, it became manifest to all the Supreme Court Judges, including the Chief Justice that the pending judgments and rulings could not be delivered as a result of the JSC directive. He states that it was therefore resolved that a letter be written to the JSC setting out the Supreme Court’s position. He avers that it was also resolved that the letter be written by only three of the Judges since the Chief Justice and Justice Wanjala sat in the JSC while the 1st and 2nd interested parties were directly affected by the issue of retirement.

59. Pursuant to that decision, a letter dated 24th September, 2015 was written to the JSC by himself and the 3rd and 5th interested parties in which they reiterated the constitutional position that the JSC had no mandate to suspend judges. He deposes that the Judges were of the considered view that the letter from the JSC undermined the independence of judges. Further, that it is only the President who is constitutionally empowered to suspend a judge from the conduct of his/her judicial work and only for the purpose of constitution of an independent tribunal.

60. It is the 4th Interested Party’s deposition that the Supreme Court Judges were also of the view that the JSC has no supervisory powers over the conduct of judicial work and cannot determine how and when a judge may perform his/her judicial duty. They were also concerned that if the directive was left to stand there was a real potential of paralyzing the operations of the Supreme Court especially in view of its constitutionally limited membership. He deposes that the suspension of the 2nd Interested Party and the placement of 1st Interested Party on terminal leave meant that the Court could not easily raise a quorum to discharge its functions as the Chief Justice was engaged in other responsibilities and could not always appear on the daily cause list. Such a scenario, in his view, would have inevitably led to a backlog of cases and thereby seriously affect the administration of justice.

61. The 4th Interested Party states that the JSC responded to their letter on 25th September, 2015 indicating that it had not found any reason to warrant the rescission of its decision of 4th September, 2015.

62. The 4th Interested Party accuses the JSC of forwarding their letter dated 24th September, 2015 to Mr. Mboya who then went ahead to use the said letter to petition for the removal of the authors of the letter. He asserts that the action of the JSC violated Section 43 of the JS Act which provides for the confidentiality of its proceedings.

63. In reply to Mr. Mboya’s averment that the interested parties used the Salat case to determine the issue of the retirement age of judges, the 4th Interested Party avers that the allegation is unfounded as their decision was limited to the question whether the JSC could direct a judge not to sit and did not in any way address the issue of retirement. He avers that the fact that the Supreme Court did not touch on the issue of retirement was confirmed by the High Court in a petition that had been filed by the 2nd Interested Party.

64. The 4th Interested Party deposes that the jurisdiction of the JSC under Article 168 of the Constitution is a unique jurisdiction exercised in very specialized circumstances. He states that the jurisdiction allows the JSC to receive complaints, investigate the complaints and make a finding or determination on the complaint. This jurisdiction, in his view, is not limited to any identifiable timelines and is by virtue of Article 259(8) of the Constitution exercisable without unreasonable delay. He asserts that reasonable time depends on the circumstances of each case and Mr. Mboya is therefore bound to demonstrate how there was a delay in handling the complaint lodged by him.

65. According to the 4th Interested Party, the JSC having found that he had not committed any gross misconduct was not obligated to send Mr. Mboya’s petition to the President for the purpose of forming a tribunal. Additionally, that the finding of “misconduct” by the JSC in its letter dated 9th May, 2016 cannot be equated to “gross misconduct”. He asserts that having specifically petitioned that the Judges be removed on the basis of “gross misconduct”, there is no basis for Mr. Mboya to seek a determination of whether a finding of “misconduct” can compel the JSC to send a petition to the President.

66. The 4th Interested Party additionally deposes that in terms of Article 168(4) of the Constitution, the JSC must send the petition to the President if any one or more of the grounds for removal is disclosed in the petition. He states that the entire Constitution does not state what is to happen to petitions that do not meet the constitutional threshold for a referral to the President. His opinion is that the only mandate of the JSC is to forward meritorious petitions to the President and it cannot read the silence of the Constitution to find that it can punish/discipline a judge where some nebulous “misconduct” is established. He stresses that Article 168 of the Constitution and Section 31 of the JS Act are clearly in respect of the removal and not the discipline of a judge.

67. The 4th Interested Party appears to retract his earlier position and sides with Mr. Mboya that the JSC handled the petition in a manner that led to unreasonable delay in its disposal. He also agrees with him that severing the petition and determining one part and leaving another part for future determination was not logical. His position is that the entire petition of Mr. Mboya ought to have either been allowed or rejected as a whole by the JSC. The 4th Interested Party further agrees with Mr. Mboya that this Court has jurisdiction under Article 258(1) to determine whether the JSC acted in accordance with the Constitution.

68. It is therefore the 4th Interested Party’s position that this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant prayers (a), d(iii) and (e) of Mr. Mboya’s petition on the grounds that the jurisdiction to consider a petition for the removal of a judge is solely vested in the JSC and not the Court and the Court cannot compel the JSC to assume or exercise a jurisdiction it does not have; that where the JSC makes a determination that it will not forward the petition to the President for lack of grounds for removal of a judge, the Court cannot substitute the JSC’s decision with its own; that it would be unconstitutional to compel the performance of a task that has a constitutional threshold where that constitutional threshold has been found not to have been met; and, that granting the said orders will be tantamount to sitting on appeal against the JSC’s decision which is a jurisdiction that the Court does not have. He therefore prays for the dismissal of the petition to the extent of prayers (a), (d)(iii) and (e) therein.

69. The further replying affidavit of the 4th Interested Party is a direct response to the further affidavit sworn by Dr. Mutunga on 7th August, 2017. The 4th Interested Party reiterates that the function of the JSC does not include the disciplining of judges and is only limited to considering a petition for the removal of a judge and sending it to the President to empanel a tribunal to inquire into the matter if it is satisfied that it discloses a ground for removal under Article 168(1) of the Constitution. He therefore disassociates himself with the averment by Dr. Mutunga that the JSC can deal with complaints of misconduct lodged against judges, including complaints that upon review only discloses judicial misconduct that still requires some form of disciplinary action.

70. The 4th Interested Party restates his averment that all the Judges of the Supreme Court met on 22nd September, 2015 and agreed to write to the JSC hence their letter to the JSC dated 24th September, 2015. The 4th Interested Party points out that Dr. Mutunga appears to concede that some discussion took place on 22nd September, 2015 but only claims that the discussions were not formal and elaborate. He avers that Dr. Mutunga was part of the discussion and it is disconcerting for him to conveniently dissociate himself from those discussions. This action, in his view, establishes partiality on the part of Dr. Mutunga who was the Chair of the JSC and the President of the Supreme Court. He accuses Dr. Mutunga of supplying a copy of their letter to the JSC to Mr. Mboya and asserts that the JSC was actually working in cahoots with Mr. Mboya in the petition for their removal from office. He further avers that the minutes exhibited by the 5th Interested Party are a true reflection of what was discussed at the meeting held on 6th October, 2015.

71. In the 4th Interested Party’s view, the main issue in the two consolidated petitions is whether the JSC has jurisdiction to mete any form of discipline including admonition on a judge and once the issue is resolved all other issues become moot. He urges the court to be “guided by the pleadings before it and not by sideshows and red herrings being introduced by Dr. Willy Mutunga”. According to him, the documents being introduced by Dr. Mutunga in an attempt to demonstrate that the Judges of the Supreme Court did not sit on some days was not part of the evidence that was before the JSC at the time it arrived at the impugned decision. His averment is that this Court can only determine the constitutionality of the decision of the JSC based on the evidence that was before the JSC at the time it made its determination.

72. The 4th Interested Party reiterates that he did not go on strike and it was the responsibility of Dr. Mutunga, as the President of the Supreme Court, to empanel Judges to hear specific matters. It is his further averment that the petition filed by Mr. Mboya before the JSC and his petition before this court is a charade and witch-hunt whose prime movers were Dr. Mutunga, Mr. Mboya and their co-conspirators within and outside the JSC. The end game, according to him, was his removal as a Judge because of his fierce independence.

73. The 5th Interested Party opposes Petition No. 204 of 2016 through two affidavits sworn on 31st May, 2016 and 27th September, 2017. She commences her averments in her first affidavit by concurring with Mr. Mboya that they were both entitled to be heard by the JSC as a fundamental requirement of fair process. It is her case that although she intended to raise several points before the JSC including the issue of jurisdiction, she was not given an opportunity and was thus condemned unheard.

74. The 5th Interested Party avers that due to the failure by the JSC to accord her a hearing, she promptly filed her petition dated 26th May, 2016 seeking, among other orders, an order to quash the decision of the JSC in its entirety. In her petition she concurs with Mr. Mboya that the JSC did not accord the parties any hearing and that the JSC acted in a manner not contemplated in law by seeking to discipline her. She, however, opposes Mr. Mboya’s petition on the grounds that he seeks to conveniently ignore the principle that where a decision is reached in disregard of due and fair process, it ought to be quashed by the Court. She does not understand why Mr. Mboya would seek an endorsement of a decision reached without due process.

75. According to 5th Interested Party, the issues to be resolved before Mr. Mboya’s petition can be considered are the fairness and integrity of the JSC process; the jurisdiction of the JSC to entertain a petition founded on the lawful exercise of judicial discretion; and the competence of the JSC to purport to discipline a judge.

76. The second affidavit of Justice Njoki Ndung’u is a further replying affidavit in response to the further affidavit of Dr. Mutunga. She accuses Dr. Mutunga of biasness stating that he was more of a witness than an independent arbiter. It is her deposition that she would have asked Dr. Mutunga to recuse himself from the matter had she been afforded a hearing by the JSC. It is also her testimony that the JSC was comfortable with proceeding to determine her case in her absence and with supplementary perception of the allegations against her being provided by testimony from the Chair of the JSC.

77. The 5th Interested Party accuses the JSC of employing diversionary tactics to draw the Court to focus on extraneous or peripheral matters instead of addressing the constitutional issues raised in her petition. According to Justice Njoki Ndung’u, it is clear that the JSC was at all times acting in concert with Mr. Mboya to orchestrate the proceedings against her and her fellow Judges with the ultimate aim of condemning them unheard.

(D) PLEADINGS IN PETITION NO. 218 OF 2016 78. The petition of Justice Njoki Ndung’u is premised on the grounds that the JSC acted without jurisdiction; and that the JSC failed to accord her a hearing hence violating her rights to fair administrative action and fair hearing.

79. It is Justice Njoki Ndungu’s averment that following a directive issued by the JSC requiring judges over seventy years to cease sitting on matters in Court, the Supreme Court held a conference on 22nd September, 2015 and resolved to convey its dissatisfaction with the directive. It was agreed that the letter would be written by herself and Justices Ibrahim and Ojwang as Justices Rawal and Tunoi were affected by the retirement age question and Dr. Mutunga and Justice Wanjala were members of the JSC.

80. Justice Njoki Ndung’u avers that their letter dated 24th September, 2015 was not responded to by the JSC for two weeks and on 6th October, 2015 they held another conference. She exhibits minutes of that meeting. It is her deposition that at all times the Supreme Court was fully functional and actually set out timelines for delivery of pending rulings and judgments. She avers that the only tentative uncertainty at the time related to actual Court sittings and potentially affected rulings.

81. It is Justice Njoki Ndung’u’s case that in the course of the determination of the Salat case, the advocate for the appellant in that matter wrote to the Chief Justice and specifically made an enquiry as to the impact of the directive of the JSC on the matter considering that Justice Tunoi who was affected by the directive was one of the five members of the bench that heard the matter. The bench felt that the issue needed to be addressed and they actually did so in the decision delivered on 19th October, 2015 with Chief Justice Mutunga dissenting.

82. It is Justice Njoki Ndung’u’s averment that prior to the delivery of the judgment in the Salat case, Mr. Mboya had filed a petition before the JSC seeking the removal of all the three judges who signed the letter dated 24th September, 2015 addressed to the JSC. The main ground in support of the petition to the JSC was that the three Judges had gone on strike. Subsequent to the delivery of the decision in the Salat case, on 21st October, 2015 Mr. Mboya filed a fresh petition before the JSC alleging violation of the Constitution by Justices Rawal and Tunoi and seeking their removal. Her averment is that Mr. Mboya also indicated that the fresh document would serve as additional grounds for the petition for the removal of Justices Ibrahim, Ojwang and herself.

83. According to Justice Njoki Ndung’u, her counsel wrote to the JSC seeking further and better particulars on the original petition. Counsel also sought to know if the additional grounds formed a new petition. Her averment is that there was no response to all those letters. She nevertheless filed a replying affidavit in opposition to the petition seeking her removal as a Judge.

84. Justice Njoki Ndung’u states that on 29th February, 2016 she received a letter from the JSC informing her that a special committee had been set up by the JSC to hear Mr. Mboya’s petition dated 9th October, 2015 and additional grounds dated 21st October, 2015. She was also informed that the date of the hearing would be communicated to her in due course.

85. Justice Njoki Ndung’u avers that through the letter dated 9th May, 2016, the JSC informed her that it had considered the petition by Mr. Mboya and her response to the same and had come to the conclusion that her conduct was unbecoming of a Judge of the Supreme Court and amounted to misconduct. Further, that the JSC had determined that the said misconduct did not warrant the recommendation for the formation of a tribunal by the President and it had been resolved that she be admonished for her misconduct.

86. It is Justice Njoki Ndungu’s case that on 10th May, 2016 her counsel wrote to the JSC seeking urgent clarification on how the proceedings culminating in the adverse decision had been conducted but she had not received a response by the time of filing her petition.

87. It is Justice Njoki Ndungu’s assertion that there is a legal vacuum in the JSC processes in that the JSC has never gazetted rules defining its procedures for handling petitions filed before it and consequently the JSC seems to be conducting ad hoc processes that are open to perceptions of bias, abuse of authority, lack of consistency and transparency and failure to adhere to fundamental tenets of fair process as enshrined in the Constitution. It is her case that the JSC is mandated by law to craft and define its rules of procedure but has failed or neglected to do so leading to the prevailing uncertainty.

88. It is also Justice Njoki Ndungu’s case that the actions of the JSC violated Article 47 of the Constitution in that the JSC lacked jurisdiction; that the actions of the JSC were unlawful; and, that the actions of the JSC did not lend themselves to the principles of transparency, accountability and natural justice. Justice Njoki Ndung’u urges the court to set down parameters and define limitations for the scope of the mandate of the JSC to avert the evident potential for abuse of the powers donated to the JSC by the people of Kenya.

89. Justice Njoki Ndung’u faults the decision dated 9th May, 2016 on the grounds that the material evidence considered by the JSC was never made known to her to enable her respond to the same; that the specific “misconduct” that she was found guilty of was never made known to her; that there was no lawful basis upon which Mr. Mboya and herself were not afforded even the most rudimentary hearing in line with the requirements of the Constitution and statute; that her preliminary objections were never addressed and no hearing was conducted contrary to the earlier assurance from the JSC; that the JSC heard a single petition in a piecemeal manner without a known timeframe for its conclusion thus prejudicing her rights to a fair, comprehensive and expeditious disposal of the matter; that there is absolutely no constitutional, statutory and legal basis for the procedure followed by the JSC in hearing and determining the petition as the JSC has not gazetted rules of its procedure to date; and, that there is absolutely no factual, constitutional, statutory or legal basis for the findings arrived at and the resolution to admonish her.

90. According to Justice Njoki Ndung’u, the further grounds filed by Mr. Mboya are based on the exercise of judicial mandate and discretion by herself and her fellow Judges and allowing the JSC to scrutinize or review such matters, will certainly erode, if not, completely destroy the independence of judges in Kenya. Such an opening, in her view, will render the exercise of judicial functions by judges subject to review by litigants through the JSC process thereby placing the JSC in the position of being a threat to the very independence and impartiality of the courts that the JSC is constitutionally mandated to protect under Article 172 of the Constitution and the JS Act.

91. As already stated, the two affidavits filed by the JSC were in response to the consolidated petitions.

92. Mr. Mboya’s response to the petition of Justice Njoki Ndungu is found in his replying affidavit sworn on 27th June, 2016. His averment is that the affidavit is also sworn in reply to the affidavit of Jackton Ojwang.

93. It is Mr. Mboya’s deposition that one of the functions of the JSC under Article 168(2) of the Constitution is to initiate, acting on its own motion or on the petition of any person, the removal of a judge. His averment is that once the JSC is seized of a written petition and responses thereto, it is required, pursuant to Article 168(4), to consider and if it is satisfied that the petition discloses a ground for removal under Article 168(1), send the petition to the President for the setting up of a tribunal. He stresses that with respect to complaints against judges, the JSC is not a disciplinary committee or tribunal but a mere processing house.

94. It is Mr. Mboya’s assertion that the role and duty of the JSC with regard to a complaint against a judge is to receive and process the complaint, analyze and decide whether misconduct on the part of a judge has been disclosed. Further, that the role of the JSC in the process of the removal of a judge is to make a presentation to the President that the question of removal of a judge has arisen and that a tribunal is to be appointed to investigate the judge.

95. According to Mr. Mboya, the procedure to be followed by the JSC before coming to the conclusion that a judge has misconducted himself/herself or the question of the removal of a judge has arisen to warrant advising the President to appoint a tribunal is not specifically provided in law.

96. It is Mr. Mboya’s averment that Justice Njoki Ndung’u has equated an oral hearing to a fair hearing. He, however, states that the oral hearing of a complaint against a judge is granted during the tribunal proceedings. He asserts that it is at the tribunal where the judge is availed an opportunity to cross-examine the complainants and to further defend himself/herself. Further, that in the proceedings before the JSC, the JSC is not obliged to call and swear witnesses for cross-examination by the affected judge since such proceedings are not in the nature of a trial but an investigation to enable the JSC make an informed decision. It is his deposition that all that the JSC is required to do is to carefully study the complaint and determine whether or not it is a proper case for referral to the President with the advice that a tribunal be appointed to investigate the conduct of the judge.

97. On the JSC’s finding of misconduct and admonition of Justice Njoki Ndung’u, Mr. Mboya avers that the decision of the JSC was the subject of his petition before this court. Mr. Mboya also avers that since Justice Njoki Ndungu is through her petition challenging the process of arriving at the misconduct determination by the JSC, she ought to have filed a judicial review application and not a petition.

(E.) Submissions(i)The Submissions of Mr. Apollo Mboya 98. On the role of the JSC in the process of the removal of a judge, Mr. Mboya through the submissions dated 5th July, 2016 contends that Article 168(1) of the Constitution provides the grounds upon which a judge may be removed from office. He points out that the JS Act at Section 2 defines a Judge as the presiding officer of a superior court. It is his observation that the same Section, however, provides that a judicial officer includes a registrar, deputy registrar, magistrate, kadhi or the presiding officer of any other court or local tribunal as may be established by an Act of Parliament, other than the courts established to hear and determine disputes relating to employment and labour relations, and the environment and the use and occupation of, and title to, land.

99. It is Mr. Mboya’s assertion that whereas Section 32 of the JS Act empowers the JSC to subject judicial officers to disciplinary procedure, judges are only subject to investigation by a tribunal appointed by the President pursuant to Article 168(5) of the Constitution. Mr. Mboya supports this point by referring to a paper titled “Judicial Ethics and Judges Conduct: The Complaints Mechanism” presented by Justice Jackton Ojwang (the 4th Interested Party) to the Annual Kenya Judges’ Colloquium held in Mombasa from 14th-19th August, 2011. Mr. Mboya agrees with Justice Ojwang that the current constitutional complaints mechanism is concerned only with removal of a judge. According to Mr. Mboya, the breaches committed by Justices Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u merit removal from office.

100. Mr. Mboya submits that with respect to complaints against judges, the JSC is not a disciplinary committee or tribunal but a mere processing house. His position is that the role and duty of the JSC with regard to a complaint against a judge is to receive, process and analyze it and decide whether misconduct on the part of the judge has been disclosed. The role of the JSC in the process of the removal of a judge, he asserts, is to make a representation to the President that a question for the removal of a judge has arisen and that a tribunal to investigate the conduct of the judge is to be appointed within the meaning of Article 168(5) of the Constitution.

101. Mr. Mboya observes that the procedure to be followed by the JSC before coming to the conclusion that a judge has misconducted himself/herself or the question for removal of a judge has arisen to warrant advising the President to appoint a tribunal is not specifically provided in law. He cites the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Selvarajan v Race Relations Board [1976] 1 All ER 12 as providing the manner in which boards and committees should conduct investigations in order to satisfy the requirement of fairness. He also relies on that decision for the proposition that the JSC is a master of its own procedure.

102. On the issue as to whether Justice Njoki Ndung’u was accorded a fair hearing, Mr. Mboya observes that the Judge in her petition equates the fact that she was not accorded an oral hearing to lack of fair hearing. According to Mr. Mboya, this argument by Justice Njoki Ndung’u lacks merit because his petition to the JSC, which she was served with, constituted the complaint. Further, that she was accorded an opportunity to put in a written response thereto, which she did. In his view, the steps taken by the JSC met the threshold for fair administrative action.

103. It is Mr. Mboya’s position that lack of an oral hearing does not translate to lack of a fair hearing as averred by Justice Njoki Ndungu in her petition. According to him, where the statute does not provide for a mandatory oral hearing, the right to a fair hearing cannot be said to have been violated if a party responds in writing. He contends that fairness of a hearing is not determined solely by its oral nature. The decisions in Kenya Revenue Authority v Menginya Salim Murgani [2010] eKLR; Local Government Board v Arlidge [1915] AC 120; Selvarajan (supra); and R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex-parte Jones [1988] 1 WLR 477 are cited in support of this position.

104. It is Mr. Mboya’s further submission that the determination of misconduct by the JSC is not an administrative action falling within the purview of Article 47 of the Constitution since the JSC in making a determination is not involved in disciplinary proceedings but a mere prima facie determination and the JSC is not obliged to call and swear witnesses to be cross– examined by the affected judge. He adds that the law does not contemplate that the JSC is to conduct inter partes oral hearing at the stage of considering a petition against a judge. His view is that all that is necessary is for the JSC to carefully study the complaint and to determine whether or not it is a proper case where reference should be made to the President to appoint a tribunal to investigate the conduct of the judge.

105. It is Mr. Mboya’s submission that from his pleadings and those of the respondents and interested parties, it is clear that the affected Judges received adequate notice of the charges levelled against them and were allowed to present their cases. It is therefore his position that the Judges were heard on their written responses and what is critical is that they were notified of the allegations through his petition to the JSC.

106. Mr. Mboya relies on the decisions in the cases of Commissioner General Kenya Revenue Authority v Onema Omwaki t/a Marenga Filling Station, CA Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2000 (UR); and Richardo EPZ International Company Ltd v Kenya Revenue Authority & another [2013] eKLR in support of the proposition that whether there was fair hearing has to be looked at in light of the circumstances of each case. According to him the allegations against the Judges were clear and detailed and they were given sufficient time to respond in writing. Also, that the Judges requested further particulars which was provided and they thereafter made responses in writing. He holds the view that the Judges were heard through their written submissions. This, he contends, was sufficient in terms of fair hearing as was observed in Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2014 Judicial Service Commission v Gladys Boss Shollei & another.

107. The decision in Dry Associates Limited v Capital Markets Authority & another, Nairobi HC Petition No. 328 of 2011 is cited as speaking to the flexibility in Article 47 of the Constitution. Also cited in support of the assertion that a fair hearing does not necessary mean oral hearing is the decision in the case of Sospeter Kioko Munguti v Nestle Kenya Limited [2013] eKLR.

108. Mr. Mboya specifically refers to the case of Richard Momanyi Osoro v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Co-operative Development & another, CA Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2006, as cited in Ricardo EPZ International Company Ltd (supra), to demonstrate that even the Public Service Commission Regulations do not provide for oral hearing of appeals and that everything can be done in writing. Also cited is the case of Karina v Transport Licensing Board [2004] 2 KLR for the holding that the requirement of fairness depends on the character of the decision-making body and not every case has to proceed through oral hearing.

109. It is Mr. Mboya’s position that disciplinary proceedings against a judge commence at the tribunal constituted by the President of the Republic of Kenya on the recommendation of the JSC. He submits that the oral hearing of the complaint against a judge is granted during the tribunal proceedings. He opines that it is at this stage where the judge is granted the opportunity to cross-examine the complainants and to defend himself or herself.

110. According to Mr. Mboya’s, Justice Njoki Ndung’u is through her petition challenging the process which the JSC used in arriving at the misconduct determination. He asserts that such a challenge can only be done by way of a judicial review application and not a constitutional petition. Nevertheless, Mr. Mboya urges that the decision to admonish Justice Njoki Ndung’u in lieu of forwarding the matter to the President as required by Article 168(4) of the Constitution is manifestly unconstitutional.

(ii)The Submissions of Justice Njoki Ndung’u 111. Justice Njoki Ndung’u filed submissions dated 3rd July, 2017 and further submissions dated 12th February, 2020. In respect of her petition, she identifies five issues for the determination of this Court. The first issue is alleged lack of jurisdiction by the JSC. It is her case that Article 168 of the Constitution mandates the JSC, either on its own motion or by virtue of a petition, to forward the petition to the President once it makes a considered finding that the petition discloses grounds that may warrant removal of a judge. Her view is that it is the President’s constitutional duty to form a tribunal and it is the tribunal that determines the substance of the petition and mete out disciplinary measures, if any.

112. Justice Njoki Ndung’u faults the JSC for proceeding without following any due process and reaching an adverse finding against her. She stresses that it is only a properly constituted tribunal appointed by the President that can take any disciplinary action against a judge. Further, that Article 172(1)(c) of the Constitution was deliberately drawn to limit the disciplinary functions of the JSC to “registrars, magistrates, other judicial officers and other staff of the Judiciary.” She urges that the decision of the JSC is illegal, null and void and ought to be quashed in its entirety because the JSC exercised powers it did not have. She is firm that the text of the Constitution is clear and the JSC cannot award itself constitutional power that is expressly and deliberately vested in a tribunal.

113. Justice Njoki Ndung’u refers to Section 3 of the JS Act and Article 172 of the Constitution and states that the JSC is not mandated to sit and review a matter based entirely on the exercise of judicial mandate and discretion by herself and her fellow Judges in their capacity as Judges of the Supreme Court. In her view, any such attempt is ultra vires and therefore contrary to the law. The decisions in the cases Jaldesa Tuke Dabelo v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & another [2015] eKLR; In Re the Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission [2011] eKLR; and, Samuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 others [2012] eKLR are cited as enunciating the legal principle that a court or tribunal without jurisdiction cannot make a determination on a matter. Further, that the assumption of jurisdiction by courts in Kenya is a subject regulated by the Constitution, statute, and judicial precedent. This Court is therefore urged to find that the JSC exceeded its jurisdiction.

114. The second issue identified by Justice Njoki Ndung’u is that Mr. Mboya’s petition to the JSC was an appeal from the Supreme Court decision in the Salat case. This, in her view, was a challenge to the exercise of judicial mandate and discretion by the Judges of the Supreme Court. Her position is that the exercise of judicial discretion as well as the independence of the Judiciary must at all times be guarded. She submits that the JSC does not have a mandate to scrutinize or review the decision made by members of the bench of the Supreme Court in exercise of their discretion. She asserts that allowing the JSC to review their decision will threaten the very independence and impartiality of the courts that the JSC is constitutionally mandated to protect under Article 172 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the JS Act. The decision of Mbogo v Shah [1968] EA 93 is cited for enunciating the principle that an appellate court should not interfere in the exercise of discretion by a judge unless it is shown that the judge was clearly wrong in the exercise of the discretion.

115. The third issue according to Justice Njoki Ndungu is the contravention of the rules of natural justice and fair process. Her take is that for the rules of natural justice and fair process to be complied with the person who is subjected to the administrative process should clearly be informed of the allegations, given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and the response should be considered before the decision is made.

116. It is Justice Njoki Ndung’u’s case that the JSC did not treat her properly in that it failed to provide her with further particulars of Mr. Mboya’s petition despite written demands. Her submission is that the failure by the JSC to provide her with particulars of the petition and to answer the question as to whether the additional grounds by Mr. Mboya amounted to a new petition, adversely affected her ability to respond fully to the allegations made against her. It is her assertion that the inaction of the JSC denied her the right to a fair, defined and impartial hearing. She cites Article 47(1) of the Constitution as guaranteeing the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. Article 50(2) is highlighted for enumerating the rights to a fair trial.

117. The decisions in Attorney General v Ryan [1980] 2 All ER 608; O’Rielly v MacMann [1983] 2 AC 273; Charles Orinda Dulo v Kenya Railways Corporation, Nairobi HC Misc. Application No. 208 of 2000; Kanda v Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322; Judicial Service Commission v Gladys Boss Shollei & another [2014] eKLR; and Onyango v Attorney General [1986-1989] EA 456 are cited as outlining the legal principles that a procedure which offends against the principles of natural justice is outside the jurisdiction of the decision-making body; that a breach of the rules of natural justice renders a decision a nullity; that the right to a hearing before any administrative decision is made is a basic right; that a person must know the evidence against him and should be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict that evidence; and, that a decision in breach of the rules of natural justice is not cured by holding that the decision would otherwise have been right.

118. Justice Njoki Ndung’u submits that the fourth issue is the fairness of the JSC’s administrative action. Her contention is that administrative law is founded on the proposition that an administrative authority must act within the powers conferred upon it by the legislature. She reaffirms her submissions on the third issue above and cites the decision of R v Kenya Revenue Authority & AMSCO Kenya Limited, Judicial Review Misc. Application No. 293 of 2013 as defining the term “consider”.

119. The fifth and final issue flagged out by Justice Njoki in respect of her petition is the gazettement of regulations under Section 47 of the JS Act. Her case is that Section 47 of the JS Act authorizes the JSC to make regulations for the better carrying out of the purposes of the Act. She states that no such regulations have been made and without regulations defining the precise procedure for petitions before the JSC, the process is open to ambiguity, arbitrariness and unfairness. She therefore prays for an order of mandamus to compel the JSC to gazette regulations that will define the process within a period of three months. This, in her view, will enable all parties to know exactly what to expect during the process before the JSC and thereby allow for transparency and openness in the manner in which hearings are conducted.

120. Reliance is placed on the decision in Republic v Kenya Vision 2030 Delivery Board & another, ex-parte Eng. Judah Abekah [2015] eKLR for the proposition that an order of mandamus is available where public officers fail to perform duties imposed upon them by statute.

121. In regard to Mr. Mboya’s petition, Justice Njoki Ndung’u reiterates her earlier submits on the powers and limits of the JSC when exercising its jurisdiction under Article 168(4) of the Constitution. Relying on the decision in Joseph Mbalu Mutava v Attorney General [2014] eKLR, she contends that in carrying out its functions the JSC is performing an administrative function and is required to comply with the Constitution and specifically Article 47. She therefore agrees with Mr. Mboya that the JSC unreasonably delayed the determination of her case for six months and also issued an incomplete determination. This, she submits, violates her right to fair administrative action.

122. It is Justice Njoki Ndungu’s case that had the JSC provided her with an opportunity to present her case, it would have found that Mr. Mboya’s complaint against her had no merit. The decision of the Privy Council in Evan Rees & others v Richard Alfred Crane [1994] WLR is cited as providing the standard that the JSC ought to have applied when evaluating the complaint against her.

123. Justice Njoki Ndung’u consequently urges the court to allow prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Mr. Mboya’s petition. She, however, submits that prayer (e) should not be allowed as a decision made in blatant disregard of the rules of natural justice and fair administrative action cannot be upheld.

124. The further submissions of Justice Njoki Ndungu analyses her oral evidence vis-à-vis that of the retired Dr. Mutunga with a view to demonstrating that the JSC did not accord her a fair hearing and that she did not participate in any strike.(iii)The Submissions of the Judicial Service Commission

125. The JSC filed submissions dated 30th October, 2017 and further submissions dated 1st March, 2020. In the submissions dated 30th October, 2017, the JSC identifies two issues for the determination of the Court in Petition No. 204 of 2016 namely whether the JSC after reaching a finding of misconduct against the Judges breached Article 168(4) of the Constitution by failing to forward the petition to the President for purposes of setting up a tribunal, and whether the JSC breached the Constitution by delaying the determination of the petition against the Judges for over six months and in issuing part determination and reserving other limbs of the petition for determination at a future date.

126. On the issue as to whether the JSC breached Article 168(4) of the Constitution, it is submitted that the JSC is, in accordance with the Preamble, and Articles 10, 249, 252 and 259 of the Constitution, mandated to interpret and apply the Constitution while it implements its roles and functions. The JSC asserts that its interpretation of the Constitution led it to conclude that it can deal with all complaints of misconduct lodged against judges, including complaints that eventually disclose a ground for seeking removal of a judge, that is to say gross misconduct or a ground which upon enquiry and review only discloses lower level judicial misconduct that still requires some form of disciplinary action. The decision of Ouko, JA in Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & another [2015] eKLR is cited as explaining the role of the JSC upon receiving a complaint against a judge.

127. It is the JSC’s position that after considering the case against Justices Ibrahim, Ojwang and Njoki Ndungu, it came to the conclusion that the conduct of the Judges was indeed unbecoming and amounted to misconduct. The JSC, however, determined that the said misconduct did not meet the threshold to warrant a recommendation for appointment of a tribunal as the same did not constitute gross misconduct. In the circumstances, the JSC recommended basic human resource measures to ensure judicial accountability without interfering with the independence of the Judges. The JSC submits that as per Paragraph VI of the Guidelines on Judicial Accountability of the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Three Branches of Government, a judge should only be removed for inability to perform judicial duties and serious misconduct.

128. On the issue of alleged violation of the Constitution because of the delay in the determination of the complaint and the issuance of part determination on the complaint, the JSC submits that Article 168(4) of the Constitution does not prescribe a time frame in which it is to undertake preliminary inquiries into complaints against judges. The JSC acknowledges that Article 259(8) of the Constitution requires that a duty under the Constitution be done without unreasonable delay, but submits that Section 20 of the JS Act empowers it to regulate its own procedure and that of its committees and reserves its inherent power to make such decisions as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of processes.

129. It is the case of the JSC that considering that it was operating under a heavy workload and demanding conditions, it acted with reasonable promptness in disposing of the matters in question. It states that it dealt with the matters within three months considering that the last response by way of replying affidavit was made by Justice Njoki Ndung’u on 23rd February, 2016 and the decision was rendered on 9th May, 2016.

130. On its failure to determine the issues raised in the additional grounds by Mr. Mboya, the JSC states that it considered the issues sub judice as there was a matter pending in Court and stayed the proceedings before it so that the Court could hear and determine the matter fully.

131. In respect of Petition No. 218 of 2016, the JSC identified the following questions for the determination of the court:-(a.) Whether the JSC has jurisdiction to deal with a matter that does not give rise to gross misconduct;(b.) Whether the written responses by the three Judges satisfied the requirements of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015;(c.) Whether the discussions during judicial conferencing and the Minutes of the Meeting of 6th October, 2015 support the Petitioner’s claim;(d.) Whether the letter dated 24th September, 2015 by Justices Ibrahim, Ojwang and Njoki to the JSC represented a collective decision of the Supreme Court Judges;(e.) Whether the JSC exercising its jurisdiction is limited to any identifiable timelines; and(f.) Whether the order of mandamus sought by the Petitioner should be granted.

132. A perusal of the submissions discloses that the JSC does not claim power to deal with a matter that does not meet the threshold set in Article 168(1) of the Constitution. This, in my view, is an important concession which eases the work of the Court in making its determination on this particular issue.

133. On the issue as to whether the written responses of the three Judges satisfied the requirements of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, the JSC contends that the procedure adopted complied with the requirements of a fair hearing. The JSC’s position is that a hearing will normally not be an oral hearing as in many cases it may suffice to give an opportunity to make representations in writing. Reliance is placed on the Zimbabwean case of Metsola v Chairman Public Service Commission & another [1989] 32 LR (SC), as cited by S. S. Musa in “Public Law in East Africa” at page 125, for the proposition that the right to be heard in appropriate circumstances may be confined to the submission of written representations.

134. The JSC contends that in accordance with the provisions of Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution, the essential components of fairness in any administrative hearing are reasonable advance notice, reasonable opportunity to be heard and an impartial competent and independent decision-maker. It is the JSC’s view therefore that the requirement of fair administrative action and hearing is meant to ensure that a party has the opportunity to present their case without substantial disadvantage compared to the other party. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & another [2015] eKLR is cited for the holding that in the absence of any constitutional or statutory procedure the JSC has administrative discretion to adopt any fair procedure appropriate to its task. Additionally, Selvarajan (supra), as cited in Judicial Service Commission v Gladys Boss Shollei & another [2014] eKLR, is quoted for the holding that administrative proceedings can be entirely in writing.

135. On the question as to whether the discussions during the Supreme Court conferencing and the minutes of the meeting of 6th October, 2015 supports Justice Njoki Ndung’u’s claim, the JSC submits that this Court should not delve into these matters as they are privileged and confidential. It is the JSC’s case that in any event, the minutes, which were recorded by the Judge herself, were challenged in a subsequent meeting and rejected on account of their inaccuracy and failure to reflect the true position of the discussions that were held.

136. As to whether the JSC in exercising its jurisdiction is limited to identifiable timelines, the JSC reiterates the submissions made in respect to Petition No. 2014 of 2016. Additionally, the JSC submits that it is a part-time Commission that does not have the benefit of sitting on a day-to-day basis.

137. On the prayer for an order of mandamus by Justice Njoki Ndung’u, the JSC submits that Article 168(1)(b) of the Constitution gives Parliament the authority to enact a judicial code of conduct, and that process was still ongoing on the date the submissions were filed. The JSC nevertheless assert that a Judicial Service Code of Conduct and Ethics exists under the Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003 but it agrees that an enhanced statutory framework is required. Additionally, the JSC states that it had, in compliance with Section 47(3) of the JS Act, presented regulations to the National Assembly, whose dealings it has no control over. It is thus urged that the prayer for an order of mandamus to compel the JSC to gazette regulations in accordance with Section 47 of the JS Act within a period of three months should be denied as it cannot reasonably be expected to interfere with the activities of the National Assembly.

138. The JSC’s further submissions dated 1st March, 2020 concentrate on the evidence adduced by Dr. Mutunga and Justice Njoki Ndung’u.

(iv)The Attorney General’s Submissions 139. The Attorney General filed submissions dated 25th October, 2017 and further submissions dated 27th February, 2020. In the initial submissions, the Attorney General submits that the JSC is constitutionally empowered to determine if a petition for the removal of a judge meets the constitutional threshold. If it does not, the petition fails. It is therefore the position of the Attorney General that Mr. Mboya is attempting to shift the locus for the determination of the merits of the alleged misconduct to this Court which should not be allowed.

140. In his further submissions the Attorney General develops his argument by stating that although the role of the JSC is to initiate the removal of a judge, Article 168(7)(b) of the Constitution clearly provides that it is the tribunal that is ultimately authorized under the Constitution to inquire into the matter, report on the facts and make binding recommendations to the President. It is the Attorney General’s position that the responsibility of determining the facts that may be adverse against a judge is expressly conferred upon the tribunal and not the JSC in the first instance.

141. The Attorney General points out that by virtue of Article 168(8) of the Constitution, a judge who is aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal may appeal to the Supreme Court. The Attorney General asserts that if the JSC were to exercise disciplinary powers over a judge and arrive at an adverse finding against the judge, then the provisions of Article 168(8) would be rendered otiose which could not have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution.

142. The Attorney General stresses that since the Constitution does not expressly provide for instances where disciplinary proceedings may be undertaken against a judge other than in proceedings that may lead to his or her removal on the basis of the grounds set out under Article 168(1), no legislation may be enacted to provide for the same in the absence of an express provision of the Constitution.

143. According to the Attorney General, any construction of the provisions of the Constitution that will permit the JSC to hear and determine questions of misconduct against judges and to mete out any adverse sanctions of whatever kind against judges is inimical to the very principle of judicial independence that is enshrined in the Constitution and which the JSC is enjoined to promote and protect.

144. On the place of the rights to fair administrative action and fair hearing in proceedings before the JSC, the Attorney General states that the Court of Appeal provided clarity in Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & another [2015] eKLR and this Court is bound by that decision. It is the Attorney General’s position that it is incumbent upon the JSC to prove that it accorded the affected Judges fair administrative action in arriving at its decision.

145. The Attorney General holds the firm view that this Court has no jurisdiction to order the JSC to forward a petition seeking the removal of a judge to the President. He refers to Article 249 of the Constitution as giving independence to commissions and independent offices and placing a duty on them to protect the sovereignty of the people. The Attorney General cites the decisions of the Supreme Court in Re the Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission [2011] eKLR; and Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services & 5 others [2014] eKLR; as well as the decision of Lenaola, J (as he then was) in Independent Policing Oversight Authority & another v Attorney General & 660 others [2014] eKLR, as highlighting the meaning and importance of the constitutional independence clause. It is the Attorney General’s position that pursuant to the cited constitutional provisions and decided cases, this Court cannot direct the JSC on its functions.

(v)The Submissions of Justice Mohammed Ibrahim 146. In his submissions dated 19th September, 2017 Justice Ibrahim urges that the JSC can only recommend to the President the appointment of a tribunal to hear and determine a petition for the removal of a judge if the JSC is satisfied that the petition discloses any of the grounds in Article 168(1) of the Constitution. His case is that, where none of the grounds stipulated in Article 168(1) is disclosed, the JSC cannot forward the petition to the President and the matter should indeed end there. He holds the view that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its decision with that of the JSC as it has been called upon to do by Mr. Mboya.

147. Justice Ibrahim contends that misconduct is not a ground for removal of a judge from office and the finding of misconduct by the JSC against him did not therefore warrant the referral of the petition to the President. He therefore asserts that the JSC was right in not forwarding the petition to the President. Nevertheless, Justice Ibrahim asserts that the JSC erred and acted ultra vires its powers under the JS Act and the Constitution by purporting to admonish him. It is his case that such form of punishment is not sanctioned by the Constitution or the JS Act for judges of the superior courts, and was therefore unwarranted. It is his submission that if none of the grounds under Article 168(1) has been disclosed, the JSC cannot prescribe any other form of punishment and the matter should end there for failure to attain the necessary constitutional threshold.

148. On the question as to whether the time taken by the JSC to reach its impugned decision was unreasonable, Justice Ibrahim submits that there is no constitutionally prescribed period for the determination of a petition under Article 168(2) of the Constitution. It is his case that Mr. Mboya ought to demonstrate how the period taken by the JSC is unreasonable in terms of any provision of the Constitution.(vi)The Submissions of Justice Jackton Ojwang

149. Justice Ojwang filed submissions dated 6th November, 2018 and further submissions dated 11th February, 2020. In the submissions dated 6th November, 2018, Justice Ojwang identifies seven issues for the determination of the Court. On the first question as to whether the JSC has jurisdiction to find judges guilty of misconduct and discipline them, Justice Ojwang commences by stating that no Judges of the Supreme Court were on strike as in the week of 28th September, 2015 to 2nd October 2015 there was no quorum. Further, that the Chief Justice did not empanel any bench. He additionally states that Judges finalized and delivered rulings and judgments during that time.

150. Turning to the mandate of the JSC under Article 168(4) of the Constitution, Justice Ojwang submits that its jurisdiction is to receive complaints, investigate the complaints, and make findings or determinations on whether the complaints meet the threshold for removal of judges under Article 168(1) of the Constitution. He states that the JSC is required to consider the petition and if it is satisfied that the petition discloses grounds for removal, it forwards the petition to the President to form a tribunal to investigate the matter and make appropriate recommendations.

151. Justice Ojwang submits that Article 168 of the Constitution does not provide for any form of discipline apart from sending the petition to the President if the JSC is satisfied that the grounds as set out at Article 168(1) have been met. He therefore holds the view that by purporting to admonish the Judges of the Supreme Court as a way of disciplining them, the JSC acted unconstitutionally as the said power is not provided under any law. The decision of the High Court in Joseph Mbalu Mutava v Attorney General & another [2014] eKLR is cited as holding that the only jurisdiction the JSC has is to verify the complaints made against a judge and that the threshold for the removal of a judge has been met. Additionally, that the preamble of the JS Act is clear that the legislation is to make provision for the appointment and removal of judges and the discipline of other judicial officers and staff. Further, that Section 31 and the Second Schedule of the JS Act provides the procedure for removal of judges.

152. It is Justice Ojwang’s case that admonition which is a synonym for reprimand, a sanction reserved for judicial officers and staff, cannot be meted against a judge of a superior court. He accepts that Article 168(1)(b) of the Constitution provides that a judge of a superior court may be removed from office only on the ground of “a breach of a code of conduct prescribed for judges of the superior courts by an Act of Parliament,” but submits that Parliament is required to enact a legislation to operationalize this provision and that the legislation is to provide for removal and not for any other form of disciplining judges of superior courts.

153. The decision of the Supreme Court in Samwuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial bank Limited & 2 others [2012] eKLR is cited as stating the source and limits of the jurisdiction of a court. Reliance is placed on the decision in Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others ex-parte Suzan General Trading JLT [2014] eKLR for the proposition that jurisdiction applies to all judicial and quasi-judicial bodies which includes the JSC. Justice Ojwang asserts that the JSC must be guided by the law, the Constitution and the JS Act. He states that by purporting to admonish the judges through the letter dated 9th May, 2015, the JSC acted ultra vires. It is therefore his case that no other form of discipline could issue as the JSC has no power to discipline judges, and it could not convert the petition into a disciplinary process.

154. The second issue identified by Justice Ojwang is whether upon making a finding of misconduct the JSC was under a duty to forward the petition to the President under Article 168(4) of the Constitution. He submits, without prejudice to his submissions on lack of jurisdiction by the JSC, that the JSC did not make a finding of gross misconduct which is a ground for removal under Article 168(1) of the Constitution. According to him, the JSC could not have forwarded the petition to the President to form a tribunal since the JSC could only do so if it was satisfied that the same disclosed a ground or grounds for removal under Article 168(1) of the Constitution. He states that the JSC in its decision of 9th May, 2016 only found misconduct and not gross misconduct and there was therefore no basis for forwarding the petition to the President.

155. Justice Ojwang also points out that it is only in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution that the Court can interfere with the decision of the JSC. He states that the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is not appellate but akin to judicial review. In his view, this Court is being asked by Mr. Mboya to sit on appeal against the decision of the JSC yet it is only the JSC which has power to decide if a petition meets the threshold to warrant forwarding to the President.

156. The third issue identified by Justice Ojwang is whether there was unreasonable delay by the JSC in determining Mr. Mboya’s decision. He agrees with Mr. Mboya that although there are no timelines imposed on the JSC in the performance of its mandate, Articles 259(8) and 47 of the Constitution required the JSC to deal with the petition expeditiously and without unreasonable delay.

157. Justice Ojwang contends that there was delay by the JSC in that during the pendency of the petition, the JSC considered, heard witnesses and made a determination in respect of a petition it had initiated into alleged gross misconduct by Justice Philip Tunoi over different allegations; that he had a legitimate expectation that the matter would be concluded within a shorter period of time; that there was need to ensure smooth operations of the Supreme Court by quickly disposing of the complaint; and, that the JSC dealt with some parts of the petition and left other parts for determination at a future date.

158. On the fourth question as to whether the JSC had jurisdiction to determine the petition in piecemeal, Justice Ojwang asserts that it had no such jurisdiction. His interpretation of Article 168(4) of the Constitution is that it requires the JSC to consider the petition and not parts of the petition. He states that there was only one petition and the JSC could either reject the same in its entirety or find that some or all the grounds disclosed a basis for removal. His view is that the JSC lacks jurisdiction to severe a petition under Article 168(2) into two or more parts and consider one part independent of the other. Further, that once the JSC renders a decision, it becomes functus officio. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Kenya Airports Authority v Mitu-Bell Welfare Society & 2 others [2016] eKLR is cited for the proposition that a judgment is the final Court order regarding the rights and liabilities of the parties and that once a Court has passed judgment it becomes functus officio. The decision of the High Court in Nancy Makokha Baraza v Judicial Service Commission & 9 others [2012] eKLR is cited as holding that the mandate of the JSC is to consider the petition. Justice Ojwang urges that going by the principle of finality, the JSC has no jurisdiction to determine the remaining part of the petition.

159. The fifth issue submitted upon by Justice Ojwang is whether the disclosure of the letter dated 24th September, 2015 to Mr. Mboya by the JSC was in breach of the right to confidentiality, fair and impartial hearing, and freedom of expression. His case is that the letter dated 24th September, 2015 which was addressed to the JSC was not copied to any person and it is apparent that the JSC forwarded a copy to Mr. Mboya. This, in his view, violated Section 43 of the JS Act which provides that any communication should be disclosed with the written consent of the JSC. The Judges in the cases of Okiya Omtata Okoiti & others v Attorney General & others, Petition No. 58 of 2014 consolidated with Petition No. 209 of 2014; and Baseline Architects Limited & 2 others v National Hospital Insurance Fund Board Management [2008] eKLR are cited as holding that improperly or illegally obtained evidence cannot be used to the detriment of the opposite party. Further, that the JSC’s conduct is an attempt to curtail the Judges’ freedom of expression.

160. The sixth issue according to Justice Ojwang is whether the JSC has jurisdiction to review any matter lawfully conducted, transacted or decided by a judge or judicial officer in the course of the exercise of his or her judicial authority, functions and discretion. In regard to the additional grounds, arising out of their decision in the Salat case, Justice Ojwang contends that the JSC’s jurisdiction does not extend to matters lawfully conducted, transacted or decided by a judge or judicial officer in the course of the exercise of his or her judicial authority, functions and discretion.

161. Article 160(1) of the Constitution is cited as providing that in the exercise of judicial authority, the Judiciary shall be subject to only the Constitution and the law and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority. Based on the stated provision, Justice Ojwang submits that the JSC cannot therefore purport to control or direct judges on how to perform their judicial functions. Further, that Article 172(1) of the Constitution requires the JSC to promote and facilitate a Judiciary that is independent, impartial and subject only to the provisions of the Constitution and the law.

162. Justice Ojwang additionally asserts that where a judge makes a wrong decision, the remedy is to appeal and that is the way to correct an error. He admits that the Supreme Court can make a wrong decision but since there is no higher court to appeal to, the remedy is to wait for another opportunity for the Court to correct itself.

163. Justice Ojwang submits that judicial independence will be a mirage if judges do not have decisional independence. This, in his view, is the idea that judges should be able to decide cases solely based on the law and facts without letting the media, politics or other concerns sway their decisions, and without fearing penalty in their careers for their decisions. His position therefore is that the decision by the JSC to purport to investigate the Judges of the Supreme Court based on their findings in the Salat case is tantamount to interference with judicial and decisional independence of judges and therefore unconstitutional

164. The seventh and final issue identified by Justice Ojwang for the determination of this Court is whether an order of certiorari should be issued quashing the decision of the JSC dated 9th May, 2016 in its entirety. On this issue, Justice Ojwang submits that the JSC as an independent constitutional commission has to carry out its functions in accordance with Article 249 of the Constitution which includes securing the observance of democratic values and principles and promoting constitutionalism. He observes that while the JSC enjoys constitutional protection of its independence, its powers are not limited or unfettered and must be exercised within the strict confines of the law.

165. According to Justice Ojwang, the decision by the JSC contained in the letter dated 9th May, 2016 was arrived at without following the requirements of Article 47 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. The JSC, he states, also exercised powers it does not have by purporting to issue the discipline of “admonishment” to judges of a superior court. The action of the JSC, he contends, attracts the judicial review remedy of certiorari as highlighted in the case of Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council & others [2008] 2 EA 300 relied on in the case of Rahab Wanjiru Njuguna v Inspector General of Police & another [2013] eKLR.

166. In his further written submissions, Justice Ojwang make arguments around the oral evidence of Dr. Mutunga and Justice Njoki Ndung’u. He essentially reiterates his original submissions and I find no reason for reproducing the further submissions in this judgment.

(F) Analysis And Determination 167. Upon perusal of the pleadings and submissions of the parties it emerges that one global issue namely the mandate of the JSC under Article 168 of the Constitution calls for the determination of this Court. The sub-issues arising therefrom are:-(a)The contours of the mandate of the JSC in the process of the removal of a judge from office;(b)The procedure to be used by the JSC in exercising its mandate under Article 168 of the Constitution;(c)The splitting of a removal petition;(d)The place of the right to fair administrative action in the removal proceedings; and(e)The time taken by the JSC to dispose of Petition No. 204 of 2016.

168. Article 168 of the Constitution which guides the process of the removal of a judge from office provides that:-“168. (1)A judge of a superior court may be removed from office only on the grounds of-(a)inability to perform the functions of office arising from mental or physical incapacity;(b)a breach of a code of conduct prescribed for judges of the superior courts by an Act of Parliament;(c)bankruptcy;(d)incompetence; or(e)gross misconduct or misbehaviour.(2)The removal of a judge may be initiated only by the Judicial Service Commission acting on its own motion, or on the petition of any person to the Judicial Service Commission.(3)A petition by a person to the Judicial Service Commission under clause (2) shall be in writing, setting out the alleged facts constituting the grounds for the judges removal.(4)The Judicial Service Commission shall consider the petition and, if it is satisfied that the petition discloses a ground for removal under clause (1), send the petition to the President.(5)The President shall, within fourteen days after receiving the petition, suspend the judge from office and, acting in accordance with the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission-(a)in the case of the Chief Justice, appoint a tribunal consisting of-(i)the Speaker of the National Assembly, as chairperson;(ii)three superior court judges from common-law jurisdictions;(iii)one advocate of fifteen years standing; and(iv)two other persons with experience in public affairs; or(b)in the case of a judge other than the Chief Justice, appoint a tribunal consisting of(i)a chairperson and three other members from among persons who hold or have held office as a judge of a superior court, or who are qualified to be appointed as such but who, in either case, have not been members of the Judicial Service Commission at any time within the immediately preceding three years;(ii)one advocate of fifteen years standing; and(iii)two other persons with experience in public affairs.(6)Despite Article 160 (4), the remuneration and benefits payable to a judge who is suspended from office under clause (5) shall be adjusted to one half until such time as the judge is removed from, or reinstated in, office.(7)A tribunal appointed under clause (5) shall-(a)be responsible for the regulation of its proceedings, subject to any legislation contemplated in clause (10); and(b)inquire into the matter expeditiously and report on the facts and make binding recommendations to the President.(8)A judge who is aggrieved by a decision of the tribunal under this Article may appeal against the decision to the Supreme Court, within ten days after the tribunal makes its recommendations.(9)The President shall act in accordance with the recommendations made by the tribunal on the later of-(a)the expiry of the time allowed for an appeal under clause (8), if no such appeal is taken; or(b)the completion of all rights of appeal in any proceedings allowed for under clause (8), if such an appeal is taken and the final order in the matter affirms the tribunal's recommendations.(10)Parliament shall enact legislation providing for the procedure of a tribunal appointed under this Article.”

169. The petitioners in the consolidated petitions, the Attorney General, Justice Ibrahim and Justice Ojwang all hold the view that the role of the JSC under Article 168 of the Constitution is to initiate or receive a complaint against a judge, consider whether it meets the grounds for removal as set out in Article 168(1), and, if so, forward the petition to the President for purposes of forming a tribunal to hear and determine the petition on merit. The JSC appears not to have a contrary opinion to that position.

170. The only point of departure is the course of action, if any, to be taken where the JSC determines that the threshold has not been met. Only the JSC holds the view that even if it determines that the threshold for referral to the President for formation of a tribunal has not been met, it has residual power to inflict sanctions on a judge where a minor infraction by a judge is established. The petitioners also differ on the orders to be issued should the court agree with the position each one of them has taken.

171. I will now turn to the issues raised in the consolidated petitions. The place of fair administrative action in our day-to-day interaction with administrative bodies is no longer a question for debate. Article 47 of the Constitution which has since been elaborated by the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 is clear that a person who is subjected to administrative action is entitled to a process that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. Where the right or fundamental freedom of a person is likely to be adversely affected by administrative action, the person has the right to be given written reasons for the action.

172. Section 4(3) and (4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 sets the standard to be met by the administrator by legislating thus:-“(3)Where an administrative action is likely to adversely affect the rights or fundamental freedoms of any person, the administrator shall give the person affected by the decision-(a)prior and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the proposed administrative action;(b)an opportunity to be heard and to make representations in that regard;(c)notice of a right to a review or internal appeal against an administrative decision, where applicable;(d)a statement of reasons pursuant to section 6;(e)notice of the right to legal representation, where applicable;(f)notice of the right to cross-examine or where applicable; or(g)information, materials and evidence to be relied upon in making the decision or taking the administrative action.(4)The administrator shall accord the person against whom administrative action is taken an opportunity to-(a)attend proceedings, in person or in the company of an expert of his choice;(b)be heard;(c)cross-examine persons who give adverse evidence against him; and(d)request for an adjournment of the proceedings, where necessary to ensure a fair hearing.”

173. The place of fair administrative action in proceedings before the JSC relating to the removal of a judge was extensively discussed extensively by the Court of Appeal in the cases of Judicial Service Commission v Gladys Boss Shollei & another [2014] eKLR and Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & another [2015] eKLR. In Judicial Service Commission v Gladys Boss Shollei & another [2014] eKLR, the Court of Appeal cited with approval the decision in Selvarajan v Race Relations Board [1976] 1 All ER 12 where the template of a fair hearing was explained thus:-“…in all these cases it has been held that the investigating body is under a duty to act fairly; but that which fairness requires depends on the nature of the investigation and the consequences which it may have on the persons affected by it. The fundamental rule is that, if a person may be subjected to pains and penalties, or be exposed to prosecution or proceedings or be deprived of remedies or redress, or in some way adversely affected by the investigation and report, then he should be told the case against him and be afforded a fair opportunity of answering it. The investigating body is however the master of its own procedure. It need not hold a hearing. It can do everything in writing. It need not allow lawyers. It need not put every detail of the case against a man. Suffice it if the broad grounds are given. It need not name its informants. It can give the substance only.”

174. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the JSC is governed by the principles of fair administrative action when it held that:-“(93)The functions and powers of the appellant as provided under Article 172 of the Constitution as read with Sections 3 and 12 of the Judicial Service Act, reveal that the appellant exercises powers that are administrative in nature and which involve decision making process that may affect the rights of judges and officers of the Judiciary. In this regard there is no doubt that the right of the respondent was likely to be adversely affected by the exercise of the appellant’s disciplinary powers, and therefore it was necessary for the appellant to comply with Article 47 in the exercise of such powers.”

175. In the Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & another [2015] eKLR, the Court of Appeal (Githinji, JA) extensively dealt with the powers of the JSC in the removal process and held that:-“(34)All these cases including Nancy Makhoha Baraza (Supra) show that an investigation is not a trial and that cross-examination of witnesses, if called, is a rare occurrence. Unless the empowering law provides otherwise, the decision whether or not to summon witnesses and the decision to allow or not allow the cross-examination of witnesses, is at the sole discretion of the investigating body. Indeed, the technical rules of evidence with the attendant right to cross-examination do not form part of the natural justice rules or in this case, part of fair administrative action. It has been contended that when the JSC decided to call witnesses it opened the inquiry and widened its parameters. That cannot be correct because JSC cannot lawfully perform a function or exercise power which article 168(4) does not confer on it. By allowing cross-examination, JSC would be performing a fact-finding function which is outside the scope of its powers.The suggestion that allowing cross-examination of witnesses in the particular circumstances of the case would usurp the functions of a tribunal and duplicate the proceedings has merit seeing that JSC is not required to make final findings of fact.”

176. The learned Judge of Appeal went ahead and stated that:-“(28)The act by JSC of initiating the process of removal of a judge, either on its own motion through information or through investigation; the act of receiving the petition from a member of the public, the consideration of the petition, the process by which it satisfies itself whether or not the petition discloses a ground for removal, the determination of that question; the act of formulating a petition and the recommendation, and the act of sending the petition to the President are indistinguishably a series of administrative actions which adversely affects a judge forming a single whole – an administrative action within the meaning of article 47(1).It is true that it was performing a constitutional mandate but in performing that mandate JSC was subject to the Constitution and, in this case, subject to 1st respondent’s constitutional right to fair administrative action. I have no doubt that on this aspect the High Court made a correct finding.”

177. I did not hear Justice Njoki Ndung’u state that she was entitled to an oral hearing. Whether the right to a fair hearing was complied with is determined by examining the administrative proceedings complained of. The question therefore is whether the process before the JSC met the constitutional and statutory threshold of fair administrative action which includes fair hearing.

178. Whereas Justice Njoki Ndung’u states that she could not defend herself because she was not provided with further and better particulars by the JSC, Mr Mboya submits that his case was encompassed in the petition he submitted to the JSC.

179. In order for the rules of natural justice and in particular the right to a fair hearing to be deemed to have been complied with, three conditions ought to have been met; the right to be heard by an unbiased tribunal, the right to have notice of the charges, and the right to be heard in answer to those charges.

180. I have perused the petition dated 9th October, 2015 and find that it clearly explained what the grievance of Mr. Mboya was. It stated why he thought the actions of the three Judges of the Supreme Court named therein had violated their oath of office in a manner that amounted to gross misconduct or misbehavior. The accusations made were very clear. The allegations against the three Judges were well explained in the petition and there was nothing more for Mr. Mboya to elaborate.

181. The additional grounds dated 21st October, 2015 also clearly expressed how Justices Ibrahim, Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u together with Justices Rawal and Tunoi had committed gross misconduct or misbehavior. I am therefore satisfied that the charges against Justice Njoki Ndung’u were very clear. Notwithstanding the fact that she asked for further and better particulars, it is apparent that she understood what Mr Mboya’s complaints were. She did indeed respond to the allegations by filing her replying affidavit sworn on 23rd February, 2016 in which she cogently answered each and every issue raised by Mr. Mboya. It is therefore apparent that she was confronted with charges she understood and was given an opportunity to respond to them and she actually did so.

182. The evidence on record also shows that the JSC wrote to Justice Njoki Ndung’u on 29th February, 2016 telling her that a special committee had been appointed to hear Mr Mboya’s petition. She was further informed that the date of the hearing would be communicated to her later. It is noted that this was never to be as the next communication she received from the JSC was the letter dated 9th May, 2016 informing her that Mr Mboya’s petition had been determined and she had been found to have committed misconduct necessitating her admonition.

183. Justice Njoki Ndung’u relies on the letter dated 29th February, 2016 to demonstrate that she was never afforded an opportunity to be heard. It is observed that there was no attempt by the JSC to explain this letter. Anybody reading the letter would presume that a formal hearing where the parties would be allowed to present their positions was going to take place. It is my view that although it is appreciated that the JSC is a master of its own procedure, the nature of the allegations made against the Judges of the Supreme Court required an oral hearing. The Judges were being accused of abdicating their constitutional duty by downing their tools. They had expressly denied going on strike. The evidence of Mr Mboya needed to be tested by way of cross-examination.

184. The necessity of an oral hearing came out very clearly during the oral testimony of Dr. Mutunga and Justice Njoki Ndung’u. The former Chief Justice testified that he received information from one of the registrars of the Supreme Court that some Judges were on strike. He, however, conceded that none of the Judges told him that they were on strike. He also admitted that the report he had exhibited in Court to show that the Judges were on strike gave various reasons as to why the matters did not proceed. He accepted that none of the reasons given includes a claim that the Judges were on strike.

185. A casual reading of the letter dated 24th September, 2015 signed by Justices Ibrahim, Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u discloses their position was that any “illegitimate interference with the work of the Court or of its seven members will necessitate a moratorium on all its judicial operations, with immediate effect”. Justice Njoki Ndung’u averred, and her averment was not rebutted, that she was on duty during one of the two weeks that she was alleged to have been on strike. It was further her averment that they wrote and delivered judgments as confirmed by the delivery of the judgment in the Salat case. It is most likely that the judgement was indeed written and edited during the period of the alleged strike. There is no reason to doubt her deposition despite the prevailing perception that the only work of a judge or a judicial officer is to hear cases. Nothing could be further from the truth. The most tasking work of a judge or a judicial officer is to make decisions which are conveyed through rulings and judgements.

186. It is interesting and at the same time perturbing to note that although Justice Ibrahim was found “guilty” of misconduct and admonished like Justices Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u, Dr. Mutunga clearly averred in his further affidavit that Justice Ibrahim was willing to be allocated work. Why and on what grounds did the JSC find that Justice Ibrahim had misconducted himself? We will never know since the JSC did not place a reasoned decision before the Court.

187. I have briefly reproduced the evidence above for the purpose of demonstrating that an oral hearing may have been necessary in the circumstances of the petition against the Judges of the Supreme Court. I nevertheless appreciate the fact that whether the Judges of the Supreme Court actually went on strike is not an issue that falls within the province of this Court. This particular issue squarely fell within the jurisdiction of the JSC. This finding explains why I have not given much space to the pleadings and submissions regarding the intrigues that played out in the Supreme Court in respect of the issue of the retirement age of the judges of the superior courts who were in office when the current Constitution came into force.

188. Notwithstanding the observations I have made above, the law remains that the JSC was entitled to consider the petition for removal and the replies thereto, and make a determination thereon. Even though an oral hearing would have been the better option in the circumstances of this case, the JSC had the discretion of considering the petition and the written responses in reaching a determination as it did. It cannot therefore be accused of failing to comply with the principles of natural justice. Ouko, JA in the case of Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & another [2015] eKLR firmly spoke to the fact that in removal proceedings before the JSC an oral hearing was not required. He held that:-“To suggest that the Commission ought to conduct a hearing, at which oral evidence is presented, tested through cross-examination and a decision reached is to render redundant the tribunal that may be appointed at the end of the spectrum and subject the judge against whom the petition has been presented to double jeopardy.”

189. There was some hint by Justice Njoki Ndung’u that she was subjected to a biased tribunal in that the former Chief Justice who was also the Chairman of the JSC has strongly come out to prosecute the petition of Mr. Mboya. Justice Ojwang also hammered home this point. They, however, did not elaborate on this issue in their submissions.

190. In his testimony before this Court Dr. Mutunga indicated that the JSC must have approved the decision made by the special committee that was formed to address the petition against Justice Njoki Ndung’u. He did not, however, state that he participated in the decision leading to the issuance of the admonition letter. With the scanty evidence before the Court, it becomes difficult to reach an adverse finding against the JSC on the issue of alleged bias. It is, however, important to note that a claim that an administrative body was or is biased is a very serious allegation, which, if proved, can lead to the quashing of the decision of the administrator by the Court.

191. In short, the JSC cannot be faulted for the manner it handled the complaint against Justices Ojwang, Ibrahim and Njoki Ndung’u. The JSC complied with the minimum requirements of the fair administrative action. I therefore find and hold that the threshold of Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 was met by the JSC in respect of the administrative proceedings against the Judges. Justice Njoki Ndungu’s claim that the JSC violated her right to fair administrative action therefore fails.

192. Three other sub-issues which are related to the above question need to be addressed at this stage: firstly, whether the delay by the JSC in determining Mr. Mboya’s petition violated the Constitution; secondly whether upon the issuance of the letter dated 9th May, 2016, the JSC became functus officio in respect of the additional grounds filed by Mr. Mboya on 21st October, 2015; and thirdly whether the JSC has authority to conduct a merits review of the judicial decision of a judge or a judicial official.

193. On the issue of the delay, Mr Mboya submits that the six months it took the JSC to determine his petition was unreasonable. Justices Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u support him on this issue. The JSC on its part claim that it had good reasons for determining the petition at the time it did. The JSC receives support from Justice Ibrahim on this issue.

194. It is agreed by all that there is no constitutional or statutory provision that requires the JSC to determine a petition for the removal of a judge within a particular period. There is further agreement that even if where no particular time for performing an act is prescribed by the Constitution, the act should be done without unreasonable delay.

195. The question is whether the period taken by the JSC to determine Mr. Mboya’s petition was unreasonable. What is unreasonable varies from case to case. The JSC has explained that it had a lot of work and does not sit from day to day. Further, that it actually took three months to determine the matter. Justice Ojwang appears to fault the JSC for expeditiously hearing and determining a complaint against Justice Tunoi over a different complaint. He points to the speed at which the JSC dealt with the case of Justice Tunoi as evidence of the delay in the determination of their case. It is difficult to agree with Justice Ojwang on this issue. The fact that a complaint filed later was determined earlier than the complaint against them cannot be a measure of unreasonable delay on the part of JSC. In conducting its proceedings, the JSC operates like a court of law. It determines its schedule according to the circumstances of each case. The fact that a court has determined a case in priority to a case filed earlier cannot be the yardstick for stating that there has been unreasonable delay in the hearing and determination of the case that was the first to be filed. Each case has its own circumstances including the seriousness of the issues, the number of witnesses, and the conduct of the parties and their advocates. Considering the reasons given by the JSC as to why it took the period of time it took to determine the Mr Mboya’s petition, I find that there was no delay in the determining of the matter.

196. As regards the splitting of Mr. Mboya’s petition, the JSC did not say much. The only defence put forward is that it determined that the additional grounds related to matters that were pending before court. The question then is whether there was one petition before the JSC. The answer is in the affirmative. In his document dated 21st October, 2015 to the JSC Mr. Mboya clearly indicated that he was making additional grounds to the petition dated 9th October, 2015 for the removal of Justices Ibrahim, Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u. In the prayers he asked the JSC to consider and deem the petition as additional and/or further aggravating grounds of incompetence of Justices Ibrahim, Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u. Mr. Mboya also indicated that the same document was a petition for the removal of Justices Rawal and Tunoi.

197. The JSC on its part clearly understood Mr. Mboya’s document dated 21st October, 2015 as additional grounds for the removal of Justices Ibrahim, Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u. Evidence in support of this finding is found in the various letters the JSC wrote to the Judges including the one dated 9th May, 2016 through which it conveyed its decision. There was therefore one petition against Justices Ibrahim, Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u. The JSC could not therefore decide some of the issues raised in the petition and leave the rest of the issues for determination later. The JSC claims those issues were sub judice. If that was so, then it ought to have made the decision that they were indeed sub judice and dismiss the further grounds on that basis. Splitting the petition and leaving some issues undetermined could only mean that the issues not addressed had no merit. I agree with Justices Ibrahim Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u that the JSC had no authority to split the petition against them and leave some issues for later determination. They were entitled to know their fate once and for all. Mr. Mboya similarly adopts the position that the petition ought to have determined in its entirety in one decision.

198. In support of my finding, it will suffice to refer to practice in our courts. At the conclusion of a criminal case in which an accused person is charged with more than one count, the trial court will find the accused person guilty on all the counts or some of the counts. The court may also find that the accused person is not guilty in respect of any of the counts. In civil cases, all the issues placed before the court are determined in one judgement. In a constitutional petition like the one before me, all the allegations of violation of constitutional rights and or breach of constitutional provisions are determined at once. There is no half judgement. The trial court is obligated to decide on all the issues placed before it in a given case. The JSC fell into grave error by leaving the additional grounds for determination at a later date. Had the JSC done a little research it would have established that by the time it was reaching its decision in May 2016 that the additional grounds were sub judice, a court of competent jurisdiction had made a finding in December 2015 that the Supreme Court had not made any determination on the question of the retirement age of judges of the superior courts of Kenya. I will cite that decision in due course.

199. Of the three sub-issues, the final one is whether the JSC can conduct a merits review of a judgment or ruling in order to determine whether there was misconduct on the part of a judge or a judicial officer. The JSC appears to agree with Justices Ibrahim, Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u that it does not have powers to conduct a merits review of the decision of a judge or judicial officer. I don’t find any difficulty in agreeing with that position. Whenever a party is aggrieved by the decision of a judge or a judicial officer, the way to go is to file an appeal or seek review. This position of the law was clearly enunciated by Ibrahim, SCJ in Yusuf Gitau Abdalla v Building Centre (K) Ltd & 4 others [2014] eKLR, as cited by Dr. Mutunga in the Salat case as follows:-“This court can only assume jurisdiction bestowed to it by the Constitution and/or Statute. Just as in the S. K Macharia case, the Court said that it cannot assume jurisdiction by way of judicial craft.….The Court’s mandate is to do justice, however that justice can only be dispensed through the laid down legal framework. Courts of justice have the jurisdiction to do justice and not injustice. However, the law acknowledges that judges are human and are fallible hence the judicial remedies of appeal and review.”

200. It cannot be said, as suggested by Justices Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u, that judgments and rulings are entirely a no-go-zone for the JSC. Nevertheless, the JSC should avoid complaints which invite it to analyze a judgment or ruling in order to determine alleged incompetence of the judge or judicial officer who authored the decision. The Salat case, and particularly the issue of the letter from the appellant’s counsel in that case inquiring about the impact of the JSC decision on the retirement age of judges on the case, was found by the majority to be a matter that needed to be addressed. Dr. Mutunga, as he was entitled to, held a different view and actually wrote a dissenting opinion on that particular issue. It was therefore wrong for the JSC to take charge of the matter in an attempt to determine if the opinion of the majority or the minority was right. That the JSC had crossed its operational boundaries is explained by the fact that it asked the Judges to respond to the additional grounds filed by Mr Mboya.

201. It is appreciated that the JSC cannot block anybody from complaining about the merits of the decisions of judges and judicial officers. However, once the JSC determines that the compliant is about the merits of a decision, it should drop such a complaint like a hot potato without even bothering to ask the judge or judicial officer to respond to the complaint. No judge or judicial officer should be disturbed by being called upon to respond to complaints which the JSC has no legal authority to hear and determine. Asking Justices Ibrahim, Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u to respond to the additional grounds which questioned the exercise of their judicial discretion was ultra vires the jurisdiction of the JSC.

202. In Joseph Mbalu Mutava v Tribunal Appointed to Investigate the Conduct of Justice Joseph Mbalu Mutava, Judge of the High Court of Kenya [2019] eKLR, the Tribunal that was appointed by the President to consider a petition for the removal of the appellant Judge found him guilty of gross misconduct for writing a ruling in a matter in respect of which a petition for his removal had been lodged with the JSC. The Supreme Court in finding that the Tribunal had acted in error held that:-“171. From the facts before us, it is clear that the Petitioner wrote a Ruling on a matter which was still under the inquiry by the JSC pursuant to allegations of misconduct levied against him. Even though the JSC claims to have directed that the file ought to be safeguarded pending the outcome of its investigation, there is no clear evidence on record to show that the Petitioner was informed about that decision. Most importantly, a Judge is presumed to be properly in office until such a time when a petition for his removal is instigated and the President acts on it. Then, that Judge is temporarily reprieved of his duties, pending the outcome of the Tribunal’s investigation. In a case such as this therefore, in the absence of any contrary information, the decision of how a Judge proceeds with the matter rests solely on his conscious as guided by the Judicial Code of Conduct and Ethics. At this point therefore, contrary to the Tribunal’s finding in this regard, we do not find any solid reason why a Judge should be condemned for performing his duties. We say so because at all material times, until the time when the Tribunal was formed, the Petitioner was a Judge with the right to perform all the duties that pertain to the office of a Judge. We are aware that there may be justifiable grounds on why a Judge should refrain from dealing with a matter which is directly under investigation by the JSC. However, any communication to suspend a Judge’s participation in a matter which is under such inquiry, should be instigated by the Chief Justice, as the head of the Judiciary as opposed to the JSC which has no such mandate. In this case, no such communication was issued to the Petitioner requesting him to suspend his participation in Application No. 305 of 2012. Consequently, we find that the Petitioner’s action of writing a Ruling on a matter that was under investigation by the JSC does not amount to gross misconduct as provided for under Article 168(1)(e) of the Constitution.”[Emphasis supplied]

203. It would indeed make the work of judges and judicial officers very difficult if the JSC is allowed to peer into the determination of issues in judgments and rulings. As correctly submitted by Justices Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u, allowing the JSC to meddle with the judicial discretion of judges and judicial officers would severely impact on the independence of the Judiciary. That is not to say the JSC cannot use the judgment or ruling of a judge or judicial officer to find that grounds of removal under Article 168(1) have been established. If a judge or judicial officer hears the case of his spouse, child, mother, brother, sister, relative or friend against another party, the JSC can legitimately use the judgment or ruling to show that the judge or judicial officer sat in a case in which he or she had a personal interest.

204. In the normal course of judicial business, however, the JSC has no reason to do a merits review of a decision like it did in the Salat case. It ought to have downed its tools immediately it realized that Mr. Mboya was attempting to seek a review of the majority decision in the Salat case. My finding is firmed up by the fact that one of the allegations Mr. Mboya had made was that the majority in the Salat case had made a determination on the issue of the retirement age of judges while the issue was pending before the High Court. It is, however, noted that by the time the JSC informed Justice Njoki Ndung’u in February, 2016 that a special committee had been formed to hear Mr Mboya’s complaint against her, the High Court had in a judgment delivered on 11th December, 2015 in Kalpana H Rawal v Judicial Service Commission & 4 others [2015] eKLR determined that the decision of the Supreme Court in the Salat case had not addressed the issue of the retirement age of judges. This is what the High Court stated:-“100. It must be remembered that the appellant’s counsel before the Supreme Court had raised a query about the constitutionality of the Supreme Court bench, which concerns the Court deemed appropriate to address.101. It would appear that at the time of the judgment, the JSC had issued a directive to judges aged over 70 years directing them not to preside over any matters. We note from the proceedings in Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 244 of 2014, Justice Phillip Tunoi and another v The Judicial Service Commission and another, of which we are seized, that there was in existence a valid conservatory order issued by our brother Odunga, J. The orders restrained the JSC from taking any steps towards the retirement of Tunoi, SCJ and Onyancha, J, pending the hearing and determination of their Petition. No doubt the Supreme Court, being the apex Court in the land, was irked by the JSC’s action, which they would not countenance.102. In our reading, the effect of the Supreme Court judgment as relates to the query was, first, to restate the sanctity of tenure of judges: it determined that such tenure is not amenable to variation by any person or agency; second, it held that the JSC lacks competence to direct or determine the sittings of judges or how they exercise their judicial mandate; and third it determined that the directive of JSC on sittings of judges was a nullity. The Court did not, however, touch upon or determine the question of the retirement age of judges. That, we note, is the key live issue before us.103. It follows therefore that, in this case, nothing turns on whether or not the disputed portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court, was per incuriam or obiter dicta.”

205. One of the allegations by Mr. Mboya had therefore been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction and the JSC had no more reason for scheduling a hearing in respect of the allegations arising from the decision in the Salat case.

206. In light of the evidence placed before this Court, I agree with Justice Njoki Ndung’u that the JSC, upon perusing the allegations arising from the decision in the Salat case, ought to have determined that it had no jurisdiction to entertain Mr. Mboya’s additional grounds. In my view, even if the JSC could entertain the allegations, it was under an obligation to consider the additional grounds together with the main petition. As already held in this judgement, Mr Mboya did not file two petitions against Justices Ibrahim, Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u. He had one petition and that petition ought to have been considered as a whole and a single determination issued. The splitting of the petition so as to leave part of it hanging like a sword of Damocles over the heads of the Judges of the Supreme Court was unreasonable, unjustified and unknown to the law that guides determination of complaints or cases.

207. What remains is the issue as to whether the JSC has jurisdiction to conduct disciplinary proceedings in respect of the judges of the superior courts of Kenya. Even though the JSC in its pleadings indicated that it had disciplinary powers over judges in respect of what it termed as low level infractions, it was tongue-tied in its submissions and could only state that:-“21. We humbly submit that it is the Constitutional responsibility of the JSC to determine the merits of any claim of judicial misconduct. Therefore, it is wrong for the Petitioner to attempt to shift the locus for determination of the merits of the particular misconduct and claims in the Additional Ground aforesaid to this Honourable Court. The Constitution further provides that should the JSC make a finding of gross misconduct against a sitting Judge then the merit of that claim will be determined by a Tribunal to be appointed by the President, with right to appeal to the Supreme Court. As such, this Honourable Court is not seized of the merit jurisdiction to delve into matters that have already been constitutionally reserved for the aforesaid bodies. We, however, concede that under article 165(6) of the Constitution, this Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the JSC, in respect of procedural matters.”

208. Time and again it has been stated that a court without jurisdiction has no power to delve into the substantive issues in a matter placed before it. That statement of the law extends to administrative bodies like the JSC. If one needs a citation in this respect then the holding in the case of Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 others Exparte Olive Telecommunication PVT Limited [2014[ eKLR is apt. In that case the Court held that:-“Therefore where the law exhaustively provides for the jurisdiction of a body or authority, the body or authority must operate within those limits and ought not to expand its jurisdiction through administrative craft or innovation. The courts would be no rubber stamp of the decisions of administrative bodies. However, if Parliament gives great powers to them, the courts must allow them to it. The Courts must nevertheless be vigilant to see that the said bodies exercise those powers in accordance with the law. The administrative bodies and tribunals or boards must act within their lawful authority and an act, whether it be of a judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative nature, is subject to the review of the courts on certain grounds. The tribunals or boards must act in good faith; extraneous considerations ought not to influence its actions; and it must not misdirect itself in fact or law. See Re Hardial Singh and Others [1979] KLR 18; [1976-80] 1 KLR 1090, Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997; Secretary of State for Employment vs. Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (No 2) [1972] 2 QB 455, Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014. ”

209. The role of the JSC under Article 168 of the Constitution is clear. Ouko, JA in Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & another [2015] eKLR confirmed that the duty of the JSC is confined to making a preliminary inquiry to satisfy itself that the petition for the removal of a judge has merit. In that regard he stated as follows:-“In considering the petition, the Commission conducts a preliminary inquiry to satisfy itself that the complaint is not frivolous, lacking in substance, unfounded or hypothetical. That it has at least some probative value. The inquiry is not intended to lead to a final decision but is designed only for receiving information for the purpose of a recommendation on which a subsequent and final decision may be founded. While so engaged, the Commission does not conduct a formal hearing at which witnesses are called and examined. The process merely seeks to determine if the petition discloses a prima facie ground or grounds to warrant the presentation of the petition to the President. It is my considered view that the mere presentation of the petition to the President, cannot in itself adversely affect the 1st respondent. The Commission must, however, be guided by Article 47 of the Constitution that enjoins it to act fairly and in good faith and to ensure expeditious, efficient and reasonable determination.If on a preliminary inquiry the Commission finds no basis or merit in the petition, it must reject it. It is only upon being satisfied, prima facie, that a case has been disclosed to warrant sending the petition to the President will it take that step.”

210. It is apparent that the JSC has no power to “try” and “convict” a judge. That power is by the Constitution reserved for the tribunal to be formed by the President where the JSC has found that the threshold for recommending the removal of a judge from office has been met. Where the JSC finds no evidence that meets the threshold in Article 168(1) of the Constitution it must down its tools.

211. It must be appreciated that judges like all human beings will at one time or another make mistakes. In my view, any mistakes which are not injurious to a judge’s oath of office should not be pursued once the JSC determines that the threshold in Article 168(1) of the Constitution has not been met. I find support for this statement in the Nigerian case of Inakoju & 17 others v Adekele & 3 ors [2007] 4 NWLR (PT1025) 423 S. C the Supreme Court of Nigeria, as cited in Martin Nyaga Wambora & 30 others v County Assembly of Embu & 4 others [2015] eKLR, where it was stated that:-“236. A body exercising its quasi-judicial function should be very careful in deciding what amounts to gross violation or misconduct. The Supreme Court of Nigeria in Hon. Muyiwa Inakoju (supra) warned that:

“It is not a lawful or legitimate exercise of the constitutional function in section 188 for a House of Assembly to remove a Governor or a Deputy Governor to achieve a political purpose or one of organised vendetta clearly outside gross misconduct under the section. Section 188 cannot be invoked merely because the House does not like the face or look of the Governor or Deputy Governor in a particular moment or the Governor or Deputy Governor refused to respond with a generous smile to the Legislature qua House on a parliamentary or courtesy visit to the holder of the office. The point I am struggling to make out of this light statement on a playful side is that section 188 is a very strong political weapon at the disposal of the House which must be used only in appropriate cases of serious wrong doing on the part of the Governor or Deputy Governor, which is tantamount to gross misconduct within the meaning of subsection (11). Section 188 is not a weapon available to the Legislature to police a Governor or Deputy Governor in every wrong doing. A Governor or Deputy Governor, as a human being, cannot always be right and he cannot claim to be right always. That explains why section 188 talks about gross misconduct. Accordingly, where a misconduct is not gross, the section 188 weapon of removal is not available to the House of Assembly.”

212. The power granted to the JSC to recommend the removal of a judge from office must be exercised with great circumspection. The people of Kenya, perhaps alive to the weaknesses and failings attendant to all human beings, decided that judges can only be removed from office for among other things, gross misconduct or misbehavior.

213. The Attorney General made a very pertinent observation to the effect that if the makers of the Constitution had intended to empower the JSC to discipline judges, then an appellate mechanism ought to have been provided for judges aggrieved by the decision of the JSC. He correctly points out that the right provided under Article 168(8) of the Constitution to appeal to the Supreme Court is only available to a judge who is aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal appointed by the President. This is indeed a valid concern. It is not feasible that the Constitution could have granted the JSC disciplinary powers without providing an avenue for appeal to judges aggrieved by its decisions. The possibility that the Constitution could have provided disciplinary power to the JSC without providing an avenue for appeal is dimmed when one considers that judicial officers whose disciplinary proceedings are conducted under the JS Act are indeed afforded an opportunity to appeal the decisions of the JSC.

214. My reading of the Constitution leads me to the firm conclusion that the makers of the Constitution, 2010 never contemplated any other procedure for dealing with the failings of a judge apart from the one provided by Article 168 of the Constitution. This fact is illuminated when one reads Article 172(1)(c) of the Constitution which empowers the JSC to:-“appoint, receive complaints against, investigate and remove from office or otherwise discipline registrars, magistrates, other judicial officers and other staff of the Judiciary, in the manner prescribed by an Act of Parliament.”The provision clearly shows that the disciplinary power of the JSC is confined to registrars, magistrates, other judicial officers and other staff of the Judiciary. If anybody wanted to mandate the JSC to discipline judges then this would have been the place to do so.

215. Article 10(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that the national values and principles of governance bind all State organs, State officers, public officers and all persons whenever any of them applies or interprets the Constitution. There is therefore merit in the submission by the JSC that it was exercising its interpretive authority when it arrived at the conclusion that it has disciplinary powers in respect of infractions by judges which do not meet the threshold of Article 168(1) of the Constitution.

216. I also note that Dr. Mutunga appreciated that there are grey areas in the Constitution that require courts, which in my view should include administrative bodies, to engage their interpretation licence when he stated in the advisory opinion In the Matter of the Speaker of the Senate & another [2013] eKLR that:-“The Court must also remain conscious of the fact that constitution-making requires compromise, which can occasionally lead to contradictions; and that the political and social demands of compromise that mark constitutional moments, fertilize vagueness in phraseology and draftsmanship. It is to the Courts that the country turns, in order to resolve these contradictions; clarify draftsmanship-gaps; and settle constitutional disputes. In other words, constitution-making does not end with its promulgation; it continues with its interpretation. It is the duty of the Court to illuminate legal penumbras that constitutions borne out of long drawn compromises, such as ours, tend to create. The constitutional text and letter may not properly express the minds of the framers, and the minds and hands of the framers may also fail to properly mine the aspirations of the people. The limitations of mind and hand should not defeat the aspirations of the people. It is in this context that the spirit of the Constitution has to be invoked by the Court as the searchlight for the illumination and elimination of these legal penumbras.”

217. The power to interpret the Constitution should, however, not be used to read into the Constitution things that were not in the minds of its drafters. Article 168 of the Constitution is so clear on the powers of the JSC that it requires no further interpretation. When it comes to the disciplining of judges, the role of the JSC is simply that of an investigator. Once an allegation of the violation of the Constitution is made against a judge, and I say a constitutional violation because a judge can only be removed on the constitutional grounds found in Article 168(1), the role of the JSC is to investigate those allegations like the Director of Criminal Investigations investigates an alleged commission of a crime. The duty of the JSC is to weigh whether there are sufficient grounds for recommending to the President the formation of a tribunal under Article 168(4) of the Constitution. Here, the role of the JSC is akin to that of the Director of Public Prosecutions when deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution. Once the JSC sends a petition to the President, its role comes to an end. The trial of a judge is conducted by the tribunal appointed by the President in compliance with the terms of Article 168 (5) of the Constitution.

218. Pursuant to Article 168(7)(b) the tribunal is the body that reports on the facts and makes binding recommendations to the President. The tribunal is therefore the “trial court” and it is only the tribunal that can make a determination of whether the alleged conduct of a judge violated the Constitution. No residual powers are granted to the JSC to decide the fate of a judge once it determines that the threshold for removal from office has not been met.

219. It is important to recognize that reprimand or admonition is a punishment recognized in employment law. For instance the Third Schedule of the JS Act which provides for “Provisions Relating to the Appointment, Discipline and Removal of Judicial Officers and Staff” legislates at Paragraph 19(1)(e) that severe reprimand and reprimand are some of the sanctions which may be inflicted on an officer as a result of disciplinary proceedings. Paragraph 20 specifically empowers the Chief Justice to administer to an officer a severe reprimand.

220. Since the JSC has no authority to discipline a judge, it follows that it cannot sanction a judge. An admonition or a reprimand is the same thing. By admonishing Justice Njoki Ndung’u, the JSC crossed its constitutional and statutory boundaries which limits its powers to determining the merits of the complaint against a judge for the sole purpose of determining whether the petition should be send to the President. The JSC has no disciplinary powers over judges in the current constitutional set-up.

221. The concern by the JSC about infractions by the judges that do not merit the formation of a tribunal may be genuine. However, it cannot purport to exercise powers not given to it by the Constitution or the laws of the land. The JSC has no disciplinary powers over judges and that is the law as of now. It is not clear why the drafters of the Constitution never provided for a mechanism for dealing with minor infractions by judges which in their nature do not meet the constitutional threshold for removal from office. One of the reasons may be found in the testimony of Dr. Mutunga that the admonition of a judge stains the record of the judge. I suspect that no litigant would want to appear before a judge with even the slightest blemish. An admonition badge does not engender confidence in a judge.

222. I entirely agree with Mr. Mboya when he observes that when it comes to the disciplining of a judge it is either a tribunal or nothing. The law does not envisage half measures. The judge has either violated the Constitution or not.

223. The JSC has no constitutional authority to try judges. It can receive or originate a complaint, investigate a complaint and make a determination whether the complaint meets the threshold for removal of a judge on the grounds found in Article 168(1) of the Constitution. Once it makes the determination, its mandate ends there. It cannot proceed to determine that the threshold has been met and proceed to recommend the removal of a judge. That is the province of the tribunal to be formed by the President. If the JSC determines that the allegations against the judge does not meet the criteria set out in Article 168(1), the JSC downs its tools and informs the complainant and the judge accordingly. The JSC has no authority of the Constitution and the law to make a finding of a lesser infraction and proceed to impose a sanction. It is only a trier of facts who can make a finding of guilt and impose a sentence. Such a role has not been given to the JSC by the people of Kenya. The right to a fair hearing does not envisage a situation where the investigator is also the judge in the same matter.

224. The purported disciplinary action taken against the Judges of the Supreme Court by the JSC is unlawful and unconstitutional. The finding by this Court that the JSC took the Judges through a fair administrative process does not sanitize the unconstitutionality or illegality in light of the finding that the JSC has no constitutional or statutory authority to discipline judges. That administrative action taken without legal backing is unconstitutional was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Martin Wanderi & 106 others v Engineers Registration Board & 10 others [2018] eKLR when it held that:-“(126)In examining Article 47(1) of the Constitution, the starting point is a presumption that the person exercising the administrative power has the legal authority to exercise that authority. Once satisfied as to the lawfulness of the power exercised, is when the court will delve into inquiring whether in the carrying out of that administrative action, there was violation of Article 47(1). This is the test of legality. So that the question of the unlawfulness or otherwise to act is at the onset of the inquiry. Where the act done was ultra vires the mandate of the administrative entity, the act is void ab initio and the inquiry stops there as there is an outright violation of the Constitution. The question of legality or the lawfulness of an act lies at the core Article 47(1).”

225. It therefore follows that the decision of the JSC finding that the Judges had misconducted themselves and admonishing them must be quashed. It is Mr. Mboya’s position that once the decision is quashed the Court should direct the JSC to send his petition to the President for the purpose of the formation of a tribunal to determine the fate of the Judges. On her part, Justices Ibrahim, Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u hold the view that once the decision is quashed that should mark the end of the matter.

226. It is indeed a correct statement of the law that the JSC violated the Constitution by exercising the power of discipline and punishment which it does not have. It is nevertheless important to recognize that the letter dated 9th May, 2016 conveyed a number of findings by the JSC. One of those findings was to the effect that the Judges were not culpable for gross misconduct or misbehavior. Mr. Mboya’s petition was premised on the ground that the Judges had committed gross misconduct. The JSC cannot be asked to revisit the matter and send the petition to the President because it has already determined that Mr. Mboya’s petition did not meet the threshold for recommending the removal of the Judges.

227. The JSC had power to hear and determine the question as to whether the Judges of the Supreme Court had violated their oath of office by going on strike. I have also found that the JSC did not violate the Judges’ right to fair administrative action in respect of the alleged downing of tools by the Judges. This Court has no power to forward Mr. Mboya’s petition to the President since that power is expressly reserved for the JSC by the Constitution. The Court cannot therefore usurp the powers of the JSC. In any case the finding of the JSC was that there was “misconduct”. Only a finding of “gross misconduct or misbehavior” merits the formation of a tribunal. Simple “misconduct”, if there is such a term, is not a ground for removal of a judge.

228. I think I have said all that needed to be said in support of my decision that the two petitions succeed on the issue of lack of jurisdiction by the JSC to conduct disciplinary proceedings against Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Jackton B. Ojwang and Njoki Susanna Ngung’u.

229. On the issue of the need for regulations to guide the process under Article 168 of the Constitution, I find that Justice Njoki Ndung’u has a point that the JSC, as empowered by Section 47(2)(c)of the JS Act, should indeed make regulations specifically to provide for all “preliminary procedures for making any recommendations required to be made under the Constitution”. Such regulations will ensure that judges facing allegations that may lead to removal from office can clearly predict the procedure to be followed. The lack of a clear procedure is not a hallmark of a fair administrative process. A person being taken through an administrative action should be able to tell beforehand what to expect of the process. The JSC should set an exemplary record on fair administrative action. Indeed Dr. Mutunga posed a poignant question in this regard thus: “If the JSC cannot give justice to judges, how can they convince the natives of this country that the Judiciary dispenses justice?” This is a question that should play in the minds of the Commissioners of the JSC whenever they are conducting disciplinary proceedings against judges, judicial officers and Judiciary staff.

230. Nevertheless, the JSC has told the Court that it has indeed made regulations but those regulations are stuck in the National Assembly and it has no control over the operations of the National Assembly. Its case is that it has played its role and no evidence was adduced to the contrary. This Court cannot compel the JSC to do something that is in the hands of another State organ. The prayer for an order of mandamus to compel the JSC to make regulations within three months from the date of this judgment therefore fails.

(G.) Orders 231. In view of my findings in this judgement, orders shall issue as follows:-(a)Petition No. 204 of 2016(i.) A Declaration is hereby issued that the Judicial Service Commission is not mandated and/or required to administer any form of discipline against judges of the superior courts of Kenya and any such purported discipline such as admonishment is unconstitutional and is therefore null and void ab initio;(ii.) A declaration is hereby issued that the Judicial Service Commission violated the Constitution by purporting to admonish Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Jackton Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u; and(iii.) A Declaration is hereby issued that the action of the Judicial Service Commission of issuing part determination on Mr. Apollo Mboya’s petition seeking the removal of Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Jackton Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u from office and reserving other limbs of the petition to a futuristic date is unreasonable, irregular and unlawful and is therefore unconstitutional and therefore null and void.(b)Petition No. 218 of 2016(i.) An Order of Certiorari is issued calling into this Court and quashing the decision of the Judicial Service Commission dated 9th May, 2016 insofar as it found the conduct of Justice Njoki Ndung’u “unbecoming of a Judge of the Supreme Court and amounts to misconduct”, and to the extent that she be “admonished for this misconduct”. The decision is also quashed insofar as it purports to reserve the determination of the additional grounds filed by Mr. Apollo Mboya on 21st October, 2015 for consideration at a later date. For avoidance of doubt, the finding by the Judicial Service Commission that Mr. Apollo Mboya’s petition “did not meet the requisite threshold to warrant a recommendation for the appointment of a Tribunal for….removal” of Justice Njoki Ndung’u “in terms of Article 168(1) and (4) of the Constitution” is valid and remains undisturbed;(ii.) A declaration is hereby issued that in the circumstances of this case the constitutional jurisdiction of the Judicial Service Commission did not extend to merits review of the decision in the Supreme Court Petition No. 23 of 2014 Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & others as the Judicial Service Commission was attempting to inquire into matters lawfully conducted, transacted or decided by the Judges of the Supreme Court in the course of the exercise of their judicial authority, functions and discretion; and(iii.) A declaration is hereby issued that the decision by the Judicial Service Commission to purport to investigate Justice Njoki Ndung’u on the matters raised in Mr. Apollo Mboya’s petition as “further grounds” dated 21st October, 2015 is unreasonable, unfair, unprocedural and unlawful on the grounds that it is ultra vires the power and authority vested in the Judicial Service Commission as it calls for a merits review of lawful discretionary decisions of Justice Njoki Ndung’u in her capacity as a Judge of the Supreme Court; and that it is a breach of the principles of natural justice and the rights of Justice Njoki Ndung’u to a fair and impartial process as enshrined in Article 47 of the Constitution.

232. The orders issued above, are in my view appropriate to right the wrongs visited upon the petitioners in the consolidated petitions by the Judicial Service Commission. Although costs should normally follow the event, I find that the consolidated petitions sought the interpretation of Article 168 of the Constitution. They are therefore in the nature of public interest litigation and the most appropriate order on costs in such circumstances is to ask each party to bear own costs. Each party is therefore directed to meet own costs of the proceedings.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING/EMAIL THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2020. W. KORIR,JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT