Supreme Court Overturns Removal of Judge Martin Muya from Office
Written by RadioVuna on May 19, 2022
Following a Supreme Court judgment that overruled a recommendation that Martin Muya be removed from office for gross misconduct, the High Court judge was given a reprieve by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court determined on Thursday that the allegations against Justice Muya that she had committed grave misconduct did not warrant her removal from office.
Tribunal’s proposal to the president to remove Judge Muya from office was ruled unlawful by a five-judge Supreme Court panel, chaired by Justice Mohammed Ibrahim.
Because of this, we conclude that petitioner’s behavior was not gross misconduct in accordance with Article 168(1)(e) of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, Article 168(7)(b) states that a tribunal’s recommendation that the President remove the petitioner from office is to be ignored.
Moreover, the court ruled that “the tribunal’s conclusions in respect of all other reasons” are “quashed and set aside.”
In other words, the judge’s job as a member of the Supreme Court will not be affected in any way.
On his way to the Supreme Court, Muya argued that the tribunal’s verdict finding him guilty of misconduct for delaying the decision in the NCBA Bank vs. Kipsigis Stores case was unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court should return him to his old post.
Nyachoti stated that he had not been afforded a fair trial and that the panel relied on unfounded evidence to recommend his dismissal from the judiciary.
The Judge was accused of committing gross misconduct by failing to give the grounds for his ruling that the status quo be preserved, which necessitated the invocation of Article 168(1). (e).
Not all delays will result in a penalty. The court stated that only “inordinate and unjustifiable delays” are discouraged.
To justify himself, the judge stated he noted the reasons for not providing written explanations for his decision in the case within the time limit.
Petitioner cited many reasons for the delay in providing reasons within 30 days as required by the Rules, according to Petitioner.” In his testimony before the Tribunal, he restated these arguments and requested that they be taken into account,” according to court documents.
