Suspended judge to appeal tribunal’s removal verdict

What you need to know:

In a notice filed Wednesday, Justice Muya through his lawyer, wants the Supreme Court to quash the recommendations of the tribunal chaired by retired Court of Appeal judge Alnashir Visram.

Suspended High Court judge Martin Muya has filed a notice seeking to appeal a decision of the tribunal which recommended his removal.

In a notice filed Wednesday, Justice Muya through his lawyer, wants the Supreme Court to quash the recommendations of the tribunal chaired by retired Court of Appeal judge Alnashir Visram.

According to the judge, there was no valid petition lodged with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) against him and that the proceedings before the JSC as well as those before the tribunal, were null and void.

The judge further wants the apex court to find that there was no inordinate delay as alleged, and that he “sufficiently and justifiably” explained himself during the hearing.

The complaint against Judge Muya was filed by NIC Bank. The bank was a defendant in a case filed by Alfred Kipkorir Mutai and Kipsigis Stores Ltd.

The JSC said after numerous adjournments, the judge granted an injunction and reserved his reasons for a period of five months.

The Commission said the delay was in total disregard of the pleas by the NIC Bank that the motor vehicles, which had been given to it as security were being sold, a move that occasioned loss to the bank.

In its report presented to President Uhuru Kenyatta last week, the tribunal unanimously agreed that the allegations against the judge had been proved.

The tribunal said the judge’s actions of delaying the delivery of the reasons for the ruling after refusing the bank’s request to stop the ongoing sale of the motor vehicles pending the determination of the application was oppressive, punitive, unjust and unfair, in the end causing the lender a loss of Sh76.2 million.

In his defence, the judge had said the delay was occasioned by a huge workload, being a single-judge station, while at the same time handling both Kericho and Bomet High courts.

In his view, the commission went beyond its mandate and convicted him. He also argued that even if the bank was aggrieved by his order, it had the right of appeal.