Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu and Supreme Court Judge Mohamed Ibrahim have secured a crucial victory in their legal showdown with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), prominent lawyers Nelson Havi and Ahmednasir Abdullahi’s associates, and Dari Limited, a company linked to former Rarieda MP Raphael Tuju.
In a strongly worded ruling delivered by Justice Bahati Mwamuye, the High Court dismissed an application by Havi that sought to strike out the twin constitutional petitions filed by the two judges.
The decision marks a significant setback for the opposing side, which had argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with what they termed a constitutional process led by the JSC.
Havi, supported by Ahmednasir’s team, the JSC, and Tuju’s Dari Limited, had urged the court to toss out the cases, claiming the judicial process was being weaponized to derail an investigation by the commission.
However, Justice Mwamuye disagreed, asserting that the JSC, while independent, is not beyond judicial oversight.
“The preliminary objections are hereby dismissed with each party bearing their own costs as they were not frivolous or vexatious,” ruled Justice Mwamuye.
Representing DCJ Mwilu, lawyer Julius Kemboy dismantled the opposing argument, stating that the petitions do not challenge the JSC’s authority to investigate judges per se — but instead question whether the commission can effectively re-evaluate judicial decisions to justify disciplinary proceedings.
Kemboy further cautioned against conflating the defunct Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board with the JSC, calling such comparisons legally flawed and misleading.
“There is no proper preliminary objection before this court. The attempt to equate the JSC with the former vetting board is fundamentally misplaced,” Kemboy argued.
Paul Nyamodi, counsel for Dari Limited, had also backed Havi’s bid, but the court’s ruling now clears the way for the substantive hearing of the petitions.
The matter pits two senior judges against the institution that oversees the discipline of judicial officers, raising high-stakes constitutional questions about oversight, judicial independence, and the scope of the JSC’s powers.
