• Justice Muya filed a petition to block probe against him over complaints of gross misconduct.
• JSC unable to file a response since it has not been served.
Image: FILE
The Judicial Service Commission is yet to be served a petition by Justice Martin Muya challenging his removal from office, the High Court was told on Thursday.
The commission has recommended formation of a tribunal to investigate three judges, one of them Muya.
Early this week, Muya through lawyer Philip Nyachoti, moved to court seeking to stop the probe against him.
They were expected to argue the application for orders to stop the investigation but the JSC told the court that they have not been served with the petition.
The commission told Justice Weldon Korir that since they were not served, they are unable to file responses to the application.
“We are asking for 14 days to file our responses and so we are opposed to them being granted the conservatory orders,” the commission said.
But Nyachoti told the court that the commission refused to be served with the petition.
Korir directed the lawyer to serve JSC’s representative to court and ruled that the commission should file their responses in the next three days.
He noted that Muya has an arguable issue in the case but it was important to hear the JSC side before he issues any orders.
In the case, Muya is accused of issuing a temporary order that led to the loss of Sh76 million by the NIC Bank.
The order was in place for five months. He was also accused of inordinately delaying his decision in another case.
The suspended judge is seeking court orders to stop the probe into his conduct.
He is also accused of incompetence, bias, impropriety and professional misconduct.
Muya has challenged the formation of a tribunal and further wants an order to declare any tribunal formed by President Uhuru Kenyatta invalid.
He has faulted the JSC recommendation, saying it is biased, suspicious and questionable and violated his constitutional rights.
He, however, questions why the commission only considered one complaint about a delayed ruling, yet there had been two and he provided similar reasons for his actions in both.
He said the delay was prompted by a huge workload, having been the only judge at his workstation and having had to serve Kericho and Bomet.
The judge says the JSC constantly disregarded his right to fair administrative action during the hearings of the complaint against him. He was constrained to make his defence on factual matters relating to both cases because he did not have access to requisite files, he said.
Muya says the cases against him do not meet the threshold for removal of a sitting judge.
He adds that the commission went beyond its mandate and convicted him. Even if the bank was aggrieved by his order, it had the right to appeal and have the same vacated to avert the reported loss, he says.