High Court blocks JSC move to have tribunal investigate Justice Ombwayo

NAIROBI, Kenya, Oct 5 – The High Court has halted a decision by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to petition the President to appoint a tribunal to investigate Justice Anthony Ombwayo.

A three-judge bench comprising Justices Onesmus Makau, Jemimah Keli and Dr Jacob Gakeri issued orders restraining the JSC from taking further action against the sitting judge.

The bench said it was satisfied with the application filed by Justice Ombwayo through his lawyer Neville Amolo.

The judges questioned the JSC decision to seek the formation of a tribunal, stating that the move was not properly considered and was contrary to constitutional provisions.

The orders effectively bar the JSC from forwarding its request to the President pending further proceedings in the matter.

The dispute stems from proceedings before Justice Ombwayo while he was sitting at the Nakuru High Court.

The judge had been presented with two files involving land matters. After hearing the parties, he dismissed an application filed by the petitioners.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the petitioners moved to the appellate court seeking to challenge the ruling and also sought a stay of the judge’s decision.

The application for stay was subsequently disallowed.

The petitioners had earlier sought to have Justice Ombwayo recuse himself from hearing their petition, but the judge found that they had not provided sufficient evidence to warrant his recusal.

Following their dissatisfaction with the judge’s decisions, the petitioners moved to the Judicial Service Commission seeking action against Justice Ombwayo.

The matter subsequently resulted in the JSC decision to pursue the formation of a tribunal to investigate the judge.

Justice Ombwayo challenged the JSC’s decision before the High Court, prompting the three-judge bench to intervene and temporarily restrain further action.

The court’s orders prevent the JSC from proceeding with the tribunal request as the legal challenge is considered.

The case places renewed focus on the constitutional procedures governing disciplinary action against serving judges and the role of the JSC in initiating such proceedings.