The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has thrown out petitions that sought to eject six senior judges, among them Chief Justice Martha Koome, declaring that none of the complaints met the constitutional threshold for removal.
Former Law Society of Kenya president Nelson Havi, businessman Edwin Dande, Ms Victoria Naishorua, and two firms—Benjoh Amalgamated and Muiri Coffee Estate—had separately lodged the complaints.
The companies are linked to Captain (Rtd) Kung’u Muigai.
At the heart of one petition was Chief Justice Koome’s decision to empanel a three-judge bench to hear a case involving herself and other Supreme Court judges. Mr Havi argued that she ought to have delegated the empanelment, citing a conflict of interest.
The Commission disagreed, saying: “Empanelment of benches under Article 165(4) of the Constitution is an exclusive prerogative of the Chief Justice.” It added that the decision was driven by what it described as “constitutional necessity.”
JSC Secretary Winfridah Mokaya confirmed the rejection: “The petition was tabled before the Commission at its meeting of July 30, 2025, and upon deliberation, the Commission concluded that it did not meet the threshold for removal of a judge under Article 168 of the Constitution.”
- JSC asks Koome to respond to petition over Ahmednasir ban
- JSC protests withdrawal of Justice Mugambi’s security after IG sentencing
Justice Isaac Lenaola was also the subject of a petition, with Ms Naishorua questioning his role as executor of the late politician John Keen’s estate. The Commission cited the sub judice rule, noting the matter is already before the High Court.
“Delving into a petition of such a nature is outside its mandate,” JSC told her lawyers.
High Court judge Alfred Mabeya faced two complaints—one tied to a land dispute at Gikomba, the other relating to Cytonn Investments insolvency proceedings. Mr Dande alleged mishandling, while Mr Havi challenged an earlier ruling. Both were dismissed.
Ms Mokaya explained: “The issuance of the orders, rulings and directions complained of were done in the exercise of judicial authority and discretion.”
Court of Appeal judges Asike Makhandia and Kathurima M’Inoti also survived petitions accusing them of endorsing a “non-existent consent judgment” from the 1990s. The JSC said the judges had acted within their judicial remit.
In all its decisions, the Commission stressed that dissatisfaction with judicial rulings must be pursued through appeals, not disciplinary petitions, and that “judicial discretion, once exercised, cannot be grounds for removal unless there is clear evidence of misconduct.”
Email your news TIPS to Editor@nairobilawmonthly.com, and to advertise with us, call +254715061658 anytime of the day
