The post David Ndii, 20 Other Presidential Advisors Move to Court to Stop Ruling on Their Appointments appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a brief ruling delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Court of Appeal President Daniel Musinga, Justice Mumbi Ngugi, and Justice George Odunga granted an interim stay of execution of the High Court’s December 18, 2025 judgment in Petition filed by a city lawyer.

The interim order, effective immediately, allows the JSC to resume considering and processing complaints against judges pending the delivery of a detailed ruling on January 23, 2026.

“Pending delivery of this Court’s ruling on January 23 2026, we grant an interim order of stay and suspension of the declaration and orders by the High Court in Petition No. E110 of 2025 stopping the Judicial Service Commission from considering and processing complaints against judges,” Justice Musinga led bench ruled.

The application was filed by the Judicial Service Commission seeking to overturn the High Court’s problematic judgment that had effectively paralyzed its constitutional mandate to ensure judicial accountability.

The Law Society of Kenya, appearing as an interested party through Senior Counsels Philip Murgor and  Ahmednasir Abdullahi  made compelling arguments urging the Court to stay execution of the High Court judgment.

Ahmednasir argued that the High Court’s ruling effectively paralyzed the Commission, preventing it from fulfilling its constitutional mandate to ensure judicial accountability.

He stressed that the Commission’s procedures are lawful, necessary, and do not infringe on judicial independence.

The original petition was filed on March 4, 2025, by Kennedy Echesa Lubengu, an advocate representing a judge facing a complaint before the JSC.

Echesa had challenged the legality of the JSC’s processes for handling complaints against judges, particularly the continued use of internal procedures in the absence of enacted and gazetted regulations as required under Section 47 of the Judicial Service Act.

The three-judge High Court bench of Justices Roselyne Aburili, John. Chigiti, and Alexander Muteti ruled in favor of Echesa, declaring that the JSC could not proceed with complaints against judges without proper regulations in place.

“Until the Judicial Service Commission enacts and gazettes regulations under Section 47 of the Judicial Service Act, it cannot hear or process complaints against judges, as doing so would violate the principles of natural justice and fair administrative action,” ruled Justices Aburili, Chigiti, and Muteti.

The judgment effectively brought all ongoing disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers to a halt.

The petition arose from a complaint filed by Aldrin Ojiambo trading as Acorn Law Advocates LLP against Lady Justice Dorah Chepkwony over alleged delay in delivering a bail application ruling in a criminal trial and the alleged loss of a criminal trial file.

Echesa had argued that the JSC’s handling of complaints violated constitutional guarantees of fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution and compromised judges’ security of tenure.

The Law Society of Kenya welcomed the Court of Appeal’s decision, noting that it restores the JSC’s ability to fulfill its constitutional mandate.

“With the issuance of the Stay of Execution, the JSC can now fulfill its constitutional mandate to guarantee judicial accountability, and it is our expectation that they will discharge this duty,” the LSK president  stated.

The interim stay means the JSC can now resume processing all pending complaints against judges and magistrates across the country, a move likely to be welcomed by complainants but potentially concerning to judicial officers who had hoped for clearer procedural guidelines.

The post Court of Appeal Temporarily Restores JSC Mandate to Hear Complaints Against Judges appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Benjamin Musyoki ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove key elements of the case against Lenolkulal and his co-accused, Hesbon Jack Wachira Ndathi and Bernard Ltarasi Lesurmat.

“This court finds that the appeals herein are merited and are hereby allowed. The convictions and sentences meted against the appellants… are set aside, and consequently the appellants Moses Kasaine Lenolkulal, Hesbon Jack Wachira Ndathi, and Bernard Ltarasi Lesurmat are hereby acquitted of the offences they were charged with in the said case,” Justice Musyoki declared.

The court also ordered that any fines previously paid by the three be refunded forthwith.

In addition, it set aside the previous order under Section 64 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA) that barred the trio from holding public office for ten years, effectively clearing the way for Lenolkulal to seek public positions.

Lenolkulal had initially been convicted on charges of conflict of interest and unlawful acquisition of public property, with the court ruling that he had knowingly acquired a direct private interest in a contract between Oryx Service Station, a company he owned, and the Samburu County Government for the supply of fuel.

Upon conviction, he had been ordered to pay fines totaling Sh85,460,995 or serve a four-year jail term.

Ndathi was accused of acting as a proxy to mask Lenolkulal’s interests, while Lesurmat faced charges of abuse of office.

The trial court had concluded that the three had misappropriated Sh84,695,996.55 from county funds.

However, Justice Musyoki observed that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed.

He noted that the investigating officer had clarified their focus was on potential conflict of interest, not procurement irregularities.

“The trial court in reaching the fine imposed on the appellants relied on the element of benefit to the said appellants. A benefit is an advantage or profit gained from something… The duo cannot be said to have benefited from the entire sum of Sh84,695,996.55, as there were attendant costs and expenses associated with delivery and supply of the fuel. I do not think that this is the kind of benefit contemplated under the Section,” the judge noted.

The Court also questioned the assumption that Lenolkulal and Ndathi shared benefits equally, highlighting that evidence suggested Ndathi was merely a proxy.

Justice Musyoki clarified that for a charge under Section 48 of ACECA to succeed, there must be a quantifiable benefit to the accused or a demonstrable loss to another party.

In this case, the court found that the county had received the fuel and that no procurement irregularities or financial loss had been proven.

Regarding Lesurmat, the court found no evidence of abuse of office or improper benefit.

“The prosecution did not establish any special relationship between Ndathi and Lesurmat… it was not even shown that Lesurmat knew Ndathi at a personal level,” he ruled

The judge also emphasized that Lenolkulal had appropriately disclosed any potential conflict of interest.

“The 1st appellant had sufficiently declared possible conflict of interest, and it was the duty of those responsible for entering the information in the conflict of interest register to make appropriate entries,” Justice Musyoki said.

Last year, the trial court had ruled that Lenolkulal and Ndathi had engaged in conflict of interest and acquired public funds unlawfully.

Magistrate Thomas Nzyoki had stated, “The overwhelming and direct evidence shows that the Governor acted in conflict of interest and acquired direct personal benefit from the supply of fuel. A governor stands prohibited from trading with his county government.”

The post Ex-Samburu Governor Lenolkulal Acquitted by the High Court in Sh84M Graft Case appeared first on Insider Bits News.