Petition seeking the removal of Justice Pauline Nyamweya filed


Petition seeking the removal of Justice Pauline Nyamweya filed
Lady Justice Pauline Nyamweya in a file photo.

A petitioner has written to the Judicial Service Commission seeking that High Court Judge Pauline Nyamweya be removed from office due to incompetence and impartiality.

Florence Kanyua Lichoro has cited six grounds in support of her petition, which, if approved by the JSC—her employer—would see the President form a tribunal to investigate her.

The petitioner has attached evidence, including copies of her rulings and decisions, which she claims were made in violation of the constitution and the law.

Lichoro, who wants Nyamweya removed from office, accuses her of bias, gross misconduct, biased rulings, and failing to discharge her judicial duties.

At the heart of the petition are at least ten ex-parte orders issued by Justice Nyamweya on a variety of issues ranging from the Kenya Bureau of Statistics to the Parliamentary Service Commission.

According to the petition, in some cases, the judge delayed making decisions on ex-parte orders, delaying justice, while in others, she issued the orders even though the applications did not merit it.

According to the petitioner, Nyamweya has been issuing ex-parte orders to applicants even when they do not merit them, delaying the delivery of justice while issuing verdicts that contradict the law.

“The petitioner hereby petitions the judicial Service Commission for removal of lady justice Pauline Nyamweya on grounds of impartiality, incompetence and failure to discharge her judicial duty,” the petition to JSC reads in part.

Efforts to reach the judge for comment were futile, as our calls went unanswered.

According to the petition, while the law requires judges to make decisions based on objective criteria, Nyamweya made rulings based on bias and prejudice, resulting in the conferral of wrongful benefits.

According to the petition, Nyamweya refused to give priority to hearing the preliminary objection challenging the court’s decision to hear and decide the ex-parte Applicant’s substantive Judicial Review Application.

The petition cites Nyamweya’s decision in a case involving the Parliamentary Service Commission and the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, in which the judge failed to issue a ruling within the statutory 45-day period.

Section 75 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act establishes strict timelines that must be followed, but the petitioner claims that Nyamweya delivered her decision after the deadline.

The ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal in Civil Case number E039 of 2021 due to the High Court’s failure to adhere to legal timeliness.

According to the petitioner, Nyamweya granted ex-parte orders to EAA company Ltd, the applicant, in Judicial Review Case number 88 of 200, despite lacking jurisdiction to hear the case.

The petitioner claims that the ex-parte applicant failed to exhaust available remedies and did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances to the court, as required by section 9(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.

According to Article 168 of the Constitution, a judge may be removed from office by the JSC for violation of the code of conduct, gross misconduct, or misbehavior.

The same Act requires a person to petition the Supreme Court for the removal of any judge from office.

“The petitioner therefore submits this humble petition to the JSC for consideration and for removal of Justice Pauline Nyamweya from office as judge,”

For Citizen TV updates
Join @citizentvke Telegram channel



Video Of The Day: Guns galore

Citizen Reporter
Story By Citizen Reporter
More by this author