BEFORE THE EMPLOYER

Judge to face JSC over 'gross misconduct'

Bank of Africa says the orders given by the judge stopped it from selling properties charged as security

In Summary

•The judge is accused of giving ex-parte orders and declining to vary them even after being told the case had been dismissed by the Court of Appeal

•He is also accused of insisting on exercising jurisdiction that he does not have in order to protect a tenant from paying rent

Image: FILE

The Judicial Service Commission will tomorrow hear a case in which a judge is accused of gross misconduct by the family of a Mombasa businessman.

The complaints against High Court judge Patrick Otieno arose out of two cases, one involving the estate of tycoon Tahir Sheikh Said Ahmed (TSS) filed by the Bank of Africa and the other by Ganjoni Properties.

The judge is accused of giving ex-parte orders (orders in presence of one party) and declining to vary them even after being told the case had been dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

 

Bank of Africa says the orders given by the judge stopped it from selling properties charged as security for loans.

In its view, the conduct of the judge was biased.

“The judge has failed to ensure that his conduct was beyond reproach in the eyes of a reasonable observer and failed to uphold the principle that justice had to not only been done but be seen to have been done,” the bank said in its petition.

The financier says it suffered loss as a result of Justice Otieno's actions.

The second complaint was filed in January 2018 by Ganjoni Properties. It says the judge gave contradictory orders in a case involving tenant and landlord.

Ganjoni Properties owners have been embroiled in a dispute with Al Riaz International Ltd over rent payment.

The judge allegedly authorised the tenant to break into the premises and Central Police Station OCS to report to him over the progress of compliance with the court order.

 

The letter sent to JSC said Ganjoni had already obtained an order from the Environment and Land Court protecting a new tenant and he was confused as to which order to follow.

“The embarrassing state of affairs is expressly caused by a judge who insists on exercising jurisdiction that he does not have in order to protect the tenant from the obligations of paying rent,” the letter reads.