SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Ombija v Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board (Civil Appeal 281 of 2015) [2015] KECA 129 (KLR) (14 December 2015) (Judgment)

[2015] KECA 129 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
129
Citation
[2015] KECA 129 (KLR)
Decided
14 December 2015
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppeal from the High Court's decision to strike out the petition challenging the Vetting Board's decision to re-vet the appellant.CoramGuimba V. Fermina, Nicholas Randa Owano Ombija, Mohammed, Nyarangi, Onguto
Holding

The High Court's decision to strike out the petition is upheld, as the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Facts

The appellant, Justice Nicholas Randa Owano Ombija, was summoned by the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board to be re-vetted before the end of his tenure. The appellant challenged the Vetting Board's decision in the High Court, which struck out the petition due to lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

  1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the petition challenging the Vetting Board's mandate to re-vet the appellant.
  2. Appellant's right to fair administrative action and fair hearing.
  3. Competence and statutory mandate of the Vetting Board to re-vet the appellant.

Reasoning

The court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the petition, citing the Supreme Court's decisions in JMVB-1 and JMVB-2, which emphasized that the High Court should not superintend the Vetting Board.

Outcome

Affirmed

Orders

  • The High Court's decision to strike out the petition is affirmed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Judges and Magistrates Vetting Act (Cap 8B)
Cases cited (3)
  • JMVB-1
  • JMVB-2
  • Judges and Magistrates’ Vetting Board vs Kenya Magistrates & Judges Association & Another (SCK) Petition No 29 of 2014
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case