The High Court has extended orders barring the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) from proceeding with cases filed against Chief Justice Martha Koome and Supreme Court judges Isaac Lenaola, Smokin Wanjala, William Ouko, and Njoki Ndung’u. The orders were issued by Justice Lawrence Mugambi, who directed all parties involved to submit their responses to an application seeking the formation of a bench to hear the cases.
This decision has sparked criticism from prominent lawyers, including Nelson Havi and Ahmednasir Abdullahi. They questioned the necessity of addressing the application for empanelment first, given that Chief Justice Koome is a party to the proceedings. Havi, a former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) president, announced his intention to appeal, arguing that the Chief Justice should not be involved in appointing judges to hear a matter in which she is directly implicated.
Justice Mugambi emphasized that the court could not overlook pending applications. Lawyer Ochieng Oduol urged his colleagues to maintain decorum and respect the judicial process despite their disagreements.
The court proceedings were further complicated by internet connectivity issues, prompting Justice Mugambi to direct that the matter be heard in open court. Several additional applications have since been filed, including one seeking joinder and another requesting the examination of Justice Lenaola.
Nelson Havi also filed a preliminary objection, arguing that the High Court lacks jurisdiction over cases involving judges and that the JSC should be allowed to proceed with the hearings. The case is set for mention on July 28, where further directions will be issued.
Earlier, Ahmednasir Abdullahi pleaded with the court to expedite the hearing, highlighting the urgency of the matter. The JSC proceedings against the Chief Justice and Supreme Court judges remain in limbo as the legal battle over jurisdiction and procedural fairness unfolds.
This case has reignited debates about judicial accountability and independence, with legal experts and commentators closely watching how the courts navigate the delicate balance between oversight and judicial immunity.
