HAVI'S CHALLENGE

Appeal court to decide AG's removal from LSK case

Judge Mativo issued orders stopping LSK from discussing the removal of Kariuki and Ogeto for Roll of Advocates.

In Summary
  • LSK had issued a notice of their removal as members of the LSK in relation to the President’s refusal to swear in 41 judges appointed by JSC last year.
  • Havi accuses the judge of bias for ruling that the AG had presented an arguable case without elaborating what the case was in the first place.
Judge John Mativo
RULING: Judge John Mativo
Image: FILE

The Court of Appeal will determine whether Justice John Mativo erred in law by stopping the removal of AG Kihara Kariuki and Solicitor General Ken Ogeto from the Roll of Advocates.

In June,  Mativo issued conservatory orders stopping LSK from discussing their removal in last week’s virtual AGM.

However, Law Society of Kenya president Nelson Havi who represents himself moved to the Appeal Court in a bid to set aside the orders by judge Mativo.

 
 

LSK had issued a notice of their removal as members of the LSK in relation to the President’s refusal to swear in 41 judges appointed by JSC last year.

While appearing in court on Thursday morning for mention of the case before judge Mativo, Havi asked the judge to allow the appeals court to determine the matter before they proceed with the case.

Most parties including the AG’s lawyers agreed that the appellate court should first dispense with the appeal by Havi then they can come back to judge Mativo’s court.

But lawyer Ochiel Dudley for LSK council opposed, saying judge Mativo should hear the case as there was a similar application for setting aside the orders before him.

Judge Mativo allowed the Court of Appeal to determine Havi’s appeal before they continue with the case before him.

In his appeal, Havi argues that Mativo erred in holding that the AG and the SG did not require leave of court to commence judicial review proceedings in terms of their chamber summons dated June 24 or at all.

“The learned judge abused his discretion, acted whimsically and in bad faith in holding that they had presented an arguable case without setting out and elaborating what such arguable case was in the first place,” read court documents.

 
 

Havi says the court also failed to hold that they had not made out any arguable case on the question as to whether there was power for their expulsion from membership of the LSK under Section 13 of the LSK Act No 21 of 2013.

Edited by Henry Makori