Marete v Judicial Service Commission (Petition 88 of 2019) [2019] KEELRC 1432 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan judge's bid to block a tribunal investigating his removal failed because courts cannot review how the Judicial Service Commission handled the petition.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the High Court/ELRC has jurisdiction to review the Judicial Service Commission's decision to recommend the removal of a Judge under Article 168
The court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of a Judge's removal process; its intervention is confined to violations of rights and fundamental freedoms during the consideration of the petition.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board, the court held that the Constitution's special procedure for removal of judges must be strictly followed. Article 168 ousts review of the merits of removal. The petitioner's complaint was that the JSC wrongly evaluated his judicial decisions, which is not a Bill of Rights complaint but an attempt to have the court exercise pretended appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over judicial decision-making.
Whether the respondent is functus officio
Yes. The respondent had already complied with Article 168(4) by forwarding the petition to the President on 20th May 2019 and has no further role in the matter.
Under Article 168 the JSC's role is limited to initiating removal and transmitting a petition that discloses a ground for removal to the President. Having done so, its mandate is exhausted. What remains is for the President to suspend the Judge and appoint a tribunal within fourteen days, and the orders sought could not be granted against the respondent.
Whether the petitioner established a prima facie case for the injunction sought
No. The petitioner did not plead any breach of his rights and fundamental freedoms, and his complaints went to the merits of the JSC's assessment of his judicial decisions.
The petitioner's grievance was that the JSC impermissibly reviewed his exercise of judicial discretion and failed to serve him with a written decision. The court found no pleaded violation of Bill of Rights freedoms, noted that the Judicial Service Act prescribes no procedure for the JSC's consideration of a removal petition before transmission, and held there was no basis for faulting the manner in which the respondent transmitted the information.
Legal principles established
#- Article 168 of the Constitution ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court and by extension the Employment and Labour Relations Court from determining the merits of the removal of a Judge; the court may only intervene where there is violation of the Judge's rights and fundamental freedoms during the process of considering a removal petition.
- Where there is a clear procedure for redress prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed.
- The Judicial Service Commission's role under Article 168 is limited to initiating removal and, if satisfied that a petition discloses a ground for removal, sending the petition to the President; once it has done so it is functus officio.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 23rd May 2019 was dismissed, the court finding that the petitioner had not established a prima facie case for grant of the orders sought.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 165(3) and 165(6) of the Constitution (jurisdiction of the High Court to determine whether rights and fundamental freedoms have been denied, violated, infringed or threatened, as extended to the Employment and Labour Relations Court); the court held Article 168 ousts jurisdiction to review the merits of a Judge's removal process
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Marete v Judicial Service Commission (Petition 88 of 2019) [2019] KEELRC 1432 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1432/eng@2019-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.