Economy

Sacked judge gets time to file appeal

muya

Judge Martin Muya. FILE PHOTO | NMG

Summary

  • The Supreme Court has allowed sacked Judge Martin Muya 30 days to prepare an appeal challenging his dismissal from the Judiciary for alleged gross misconduct.
  • Appearing before the Deputy Registrar of the top court Daniel ole Keiwua yesterday, Mr Muya through his lawyers successfully applied for more time to submit the court documents.

The Supreme Court has allowed sacked Judge Martin Muya 30 days to prepare an appeal challenging his dismissal from the Judiciary for alleged gross misconduct.

Appearing before the Deputy Registrar of the top court Daniel ole Keiwua yesterday, Mr Muya through his lawyers successfully applied for more time to submit the court documents.

A tribunal chaired by retired Court of Appeal judge Alnashir Visram recommended the sacking in March. The High Court judge was accused of delaying giving reasons for a court case in Bomet, occasioning losses to NCBA Bank.

But through lawyers Fred Ngatia and Philip Nyachoti, the judge moved to the Supreme Court to challenge the decision. The case will be mentioned on November 20 to confirm whether the Attorney-General and other parties have filed their replies.

The seven-member tribunal chaired presented its report to President Uhuru Kenyatta on March 20, recommending the removal of the long-serving judicial officer.

The tribunal concluded that Justice Muya was guilty of gross misconduct for delaying for five months, reasons for his ruling dated May 30, 2017 in a commercial dispute pitting Kipsigis Stores and NIC Bank.

According to the tribunal, there was unjustifiable and inordinate delay by the judge in delivering the ruling for the injunction of an application pending before him.

“The tribunal is of the view that the judge misconducted himself by delaying to deliver the reserved reasons with the result that access to justice was curtailed,” the tribunal said.

The delay caused NIC Bank to suffer prejudice and loss.

“For the avoidance of doubt, we emphasise that it is not every delay of over five months which is unjustifiable and/or inordinate. We are not setting out an inexorable rule on what constitutes unjustifiable and inordinate delay,” the tribunal stated.