The Supreme Court has reversed the impeachment of High Court Justice Martin Muya, saying the grounds for his dismissal were not gross misconduct.
A jury of five Supreme Court Justices headed by Mohammed Ibrahim ruled that delaying the reasoning of a judgment for a period of five months did not amount to gross misconduct.
A court presided over by former Court of Appeal Judge Alnashir Visram found him guilty of gross misconduct for delay guilty of a decision he issued in a matter against NCBA Bank and Kipsigis Stores.
“We declare that the petitioner’s conduct does not constitute serious misconduct within the meaning of Article 168(1)(e) of the represents constitution. The tribunal’s recommendation that the President remove the petitioner from office under Article 168(7)(b) of the Constitution is also overturned,” the judge said Words recommended delay caused the lender to lose $76 million after 14 trucks that NCBA Bank was chasing were auctioned off by another party over a different debt.
The lender was in litigation with Kipsigis Stores involved over a loan secured with the trucks.
According to the tribunal, the bank lost $76 million in the lawsuit brought by the judge, who did not give a reason after ordering the status quo to be maintained sh The judge said he did not authorize the sale of the trucks but asked the parties to keep the vehicles until the case was decided.
But the judge argued through attorney Philip Nyachoti that there was no evidence to support this suffered a loss to the bank.
The court agreed, stating that the lender was inconvenienced but found no loss or damage.
“On the first ground, lift We review the court’s decision that the delay in providing reasons was unreasonable and constituted gross misconduct,” the judges added.
The Supreme Court said, although the court has wide powers in investigating the Having reasons to remove a judge, it acted beyond its mandate in certain situations where it was examining issues that needed to be decided by the High Court, or introducing matters that the petitioner was concerned were not in place when he made the decision in question.
“We have demonstrated that there was no proven loss or damage suffered by the bank as a direct result of the petitioner’s decision,” said the dish.