LSK seeks diplomatic end to Judiciary retirement stand-off
- 5 years ago
A no holds barred, bare knuckled fight was expected in the Supreme Court on Thursday when the Deputy Chief Justice Kalpana Rawal and Supreme Court judge Philip Tunoi, on one side, and the Judiciary and Judicial Service Commission, on the other, ‘faced off.’
But things didn’t quite ‘go down’ that way as the Law Society of Kenya sought to forestall any bloodshed by proposing that the two sides sit across from one another on the mediation table and seek an amicable solution to the dispute on when judges appointed prior to the promulgation of the Constitution should retire.
The Law Society which was enjoined as amicus curiae on Thursday argued that an alternative dispute resolution mechanism was preferential to having the five-judge bench of Chief Justice Willy Mutunga and Supreme Court judges Mohammed Ibrahim, Jackton Ojwang, Smokin Wanjala and Njoki Ndungu sit over a case brought before them by their peers particularly given they were perceived to have already taken sides on the matter.
“The matter before your lordships touches on the standing of the court. There is an application for instance which challenges the various lordships being involved in the matter. In our view, there is a danger that if various positions in the matter are upheld, we may not have a bench to hear this various disputes,” the LSK argued.
But things didn’t quite ‘go down’ that way as the Law Society of Kenya sought to forestall any bloodshed by proposing that the two sides sit across from one another on the mediation table and seek an amicable solution to the dispute on when judges appointed prior to the promulgation of the Constitution should retire.
The Law Society which was enjoined as amicus curiae on Thursday argued that an alternative dispute resolution mechanism was preferential to having the five-judge bench of Chief Justice Willy Mutunga and Supreme Court judges Mohammed Ibrahim, Jackton Ojwang, Smokin Wanjala and Njoki Ndungu sit over a case brought before them by their peers particularly given they were perceived to have already taken sides on the matter.
“The matter before your lordships touches on the standing of the court. There is an application for instance which challenges the various lordships being involved in the matter. In our view, there is a danger that if various positions in the matter are upheld, we may not have a bench to hear this various disputes,” the LSK argued.