Was English Judge Teare a cog in the scheme?
Justice Nigel Teare is revered in England. He has superintended epochal cases at home and away. He is the judge who presided over, struck out the defence and counterclaim by Kenya and entered judgment in respect of the Universal Satpace (North America) LLC vs Government of Kenya case. Kenya eventually paid sh1.4 billion in compensation, following the ruling (Claim no. 2006 Folio 881) in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, London, on December 20, 2013.
Satspace was the company contracted by the Ministry of Transport to supply VSAT equipment to 980 post offices spread countrywide, a project valued at Sh1.03 billion (current exchange rate), signed in July 2002. The FMSC was the financier while the Kenya government was the guarantor.
The government reneged on the deal two years later after repaying just half of the contract fee. It claimed that the deal was a product of deceit. But Satpsace claimed it had delivered the 980 units while FMSC insisted it had released all the money to the supplier as agreed in the contract. Both the supplier and financier sued Kenya for breach of deal.
Suits, countersuits and arbitration couldn’t unhook Kenya
But Judge Teare’s judgment against Kenya has sparked public outrage, forcing the Attorney General Githu Muigai to openly fight claims that he was either clumsy in his defence of the case or driven by factors hardly in the best interests of the country. The Law Society of Kenya (LSK), in particular, is convinced the case was bungled – at the hands of the State Law Office.
According to the LSK, there may have been a covert plan to wreck the case. It is now casting the net far and wide.
LSK chief executive Apollo Mboya has written to his counterpart in England (headed by Des Hudson) to scrutinize the Kenyan case “with a view to establish whether there was a conspiracy” involving Judge Teare.
Did the English Judge contrive with others to swindle Kenyans?
According to LSK, the Englishman failed to establish whether Solicitor General Muturi had the requisite licence to practice in courts of England and Wales, when he moved to represent Kenya in the case. The Society claims the judgment against Kenya was based on “hearsay and oral representation without any documentary evidence on the amounts agreed at the mediation”.
He was so casual in dealing with the case that he even ignored the weighty matters of corruption and bribery which were pleaded in the defence and counterclaim, LSK says.
It is against this backdrop that the LSK, in the letter dated May 19, 2014, wrote to Mr Hudson to investigate Judge Teare. The letter is one among dozens the Society has written to various individuals and bodies in regard to the Kenyan case.
This publication was able to access a copy of Teare’s judgment. Interestingly, the Judge appears to justify every presentation by the claimant without even attempting to request any supporting evidence or proof. Indeed, he seems to lean towards the claimant, Universal Satspace (whose counsel is McLaren).
In one instance, when Solicitor Gen Muturi questioned the rationality of the pounds 75,000 demanded by McLaren as legal costs, the Judge interjects: “Well, it seems to me … that the rates claimed for the solicitors are not excessive by reference to the rates appropriate in this court. So the rates, Mr Muturi, are not excessive.
“It is a rare case, Mr Muturi, that people get precisely what they claim because people generally note down exactly what they have done and sometimes it is difficult to justice what it is claimed. I would propose to make a reduction in the total sum claimed of some pounds 75,000 to pounds 60,000
(Muturi had sought written submissions as to the costs)
And when Muturi required permission to appeal against the judgment, in order to pursue the line of corruption in the award of the contract in question, Judge Teare declined. “I do not consider that there is a real prospect that the Court of Appeal would reach a different view and so I refuse leave to appeal.”
Incidentally, in awarding the claimants, the judge hardly considered the amount agreed in the negotiation. (See related story in this section)
And in his closing remarks, the Judge turns mocking and quips, thus: “Mr Muturi, thank you very much for attending court on behalf of the government. It has been great assistance to hear what you had to say. Of course, I did not accept what you had to say, but as you will understand that is what happens in court”.
Muturi then responds, thus “it is the nature of the job”.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@nairobilawmonthly.com, and to advertise with us, call +254715061658 anytime of the day
