logo

In Courts: 3-judge bench to determine validity of their empanelment

Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Freda Mugambi set the date after parties on Tuesday submitted extensively on the matter.

image
by SUSAN MUHINDI

News23 October 2024 - 09:50

In Summary


  • Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Freda Mugambi set the date after parties on Tuesday submitted extensively on how they were appointed to hear the case.
  • Gachagua through his team of advocates led by Senior Counsel Paul Muite argued that the only person who has the capacity to empanel a bench is the Chief Justice.


A three-judge bench will today deliver a ruling on whether they will disqualify themselves or proceed with a case challenging orders blocking the appointment of Kithure Kindiki as the Deputy President.

Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Freda Mugambi set the date after parties on Tuesday submitted extensively on how they were appointed to hear the case.

Impeached Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua through his team of advocates led by Senior Counsel Paul Muite argued that the only person who has the capacity to empanel a bench is the Chief Justice.

They sought to find out at what point the file came from Kerugoya at 4 pm to the DCJ to appoint Justices Anthony Mrima, Eric Ogola and Fridah Mugambi to hear the matters.

It's in the Kerugoya file where orders were issued blocking Kindiki from taking office.

Shortly after an application was filed by Solicitor General Shaddrack Mose seeking to set aside those orders.

Justice Mugambi who sits in Kerugoya on Saturday directed the application to come for a hearing today (Tuesday).

In a brief rejoinder, the state represented by Senior Counsels Prof Githu Muigai and  Prof Tom Ojienda that the bench was properly constituted by the DCJ.

They said she was exercising powers donated to her by the CJ as she was at the time in Geneva, Switzerland.

Ojienda cited the Judicial Service Act which he said provides that the DCJ can exercise the powers of the CJ in her absence.

But Gachagua asked the court to find that they were not given a fair opportunity to interrogate a document which allegedly demonstrated that the CJ was in Geneva.


logo© The Star 2024. All rights reserved