The High Court has thrown out an application seeking to disqualify a three-judge bench appointed to hear a petition arising from ongoing Judicial Service Commission (JSC) proceedings, ruling that the challenge lacked evidence, merit, and any lawful foundation.
In a unanimous decision, Justices Charles Kariuki, Lawrence Mugambi, and Bahati Mwamuye held that the accusations raised against the empanelment were speculative assertions unsupported by facts and therefore incapable of warranting judicial interference.
The applicants had questioned the impartiality of Justices Mugambi and Mwamuye, claiming they were too recently appointed to the High Court and were allegedly favored by the Chief Justice—assertions the bench dismissed as exaggerated and devoid of substance.
The court noted that nothing had been presented to demonstrate actual bias, improper influence, or any conduct that would compromise the independence of the judges.
It added that the argument on seniority was legally misplaced, affirming that all High Court judges carry equal constitutional authority, and that seniority cannot be used as a ground to oppose judicial assignment to a matter.
The bench further clarified that questions of expertise had been misconceived by the applicants, emphasising that the appointed judges were fully competent and that specialized knowledge is not a prerequisite for empanelment under the Constitution.
Citing the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the Gachagua decision, the judges held that empanelment is a completed administrative process and, once done, the High Court becomes functus officio—meaning it cannot reopen or reassign the matter.
They stressed that the High Court has no jurisdiction to undo or revisit the decision of the Chief Justice on the constitution of a bench.
By Andrew Kariuki
