The apex court ruled that the grounds raised for the removal of justice Muya from office did not amount to gross misconduct. According to a five-bench judge of the Supreme Court led by Justice Mohammed Ibrahim, the tribunal’s recommendation to the president to remove justice Muya from office is unconstitutional, thence putting aside the tribunal’s finding.
“We declare that the petitioner’s conduct did not amount to gross misconduct in terms of Article 168(1)(e) of the Constitution. The tribunal’s recommendation to the President to remove the petitioner from office under Article 168(7)(b) of the Constitution is likewise set aside, the tribunal’s findings in respect of all other grounds, set above are quashed and set aside” the apex court ruled.
This rulling means that Mr. Martin Muya will continue working as a judge of the High Court.
Justice Muya had moved to the Supreme Court asking to be reinstated to his previous position, while also challenging the decision of a tribunal which had found him guilty of misconduct over delay in delivering a ruling in a case pitting NCBA Bank and Kipsigis Stores.
Through lawyer Philip Nyachoti, Muya argued that he was not accorded a fair trial and that the tribunal’s decision reccommending his removal from office was based on unsubstantiated evidence.
The allegations against Judge Martin Muya were that he delayed the delivery of reasons for ordering that the status quo be maintained and therefore he committed an act of gross misconduct, warranting the invocation of Article 168(1) (e).
“It is not every delay that would attract punishment. Only inordinate and inexcusable delays are discouraged,’’ the court noted.
While defending himself, Judge Muya said that he recorded the reasons why he did not give written reasons in the Ruling of the said case within the stipulated time .
“According to the Petitioner, he had enumerated several reasons to justify the failure to render reasons for the ruling within thirty days as required by the Rules. He reiterated those reasons before the Tribunal and asked it to consider them,” reads court papers.