Drama as Havi, Ahmednasir clash with judge over orders

A mention of five court cases filed by Supreme Court Judges ended up in drama, with lawyers Nelson Havi and Ahmednasir Abdullahi engaging the judge in a shouting match over his orders.

Justice Lawrence Mugambi extended his orders, barring the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) from entertaining or determining petitions of the judges filed by Havi, Ahmednasir associates, and former Rarieda Member of Parliament Raphael Tuju, his children and company, Dari Limited.

He extended the orders in the cases filed by Chief Justice Martha Koome and Justices Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko.

He directed that parties who had not filed their responses in all the cases should do so within 10 days, while the lawyers for the judges were given four days to file their rejoinders. Justice Mugambi set a mention on March 28, 2025

The order for a mention seemed to infuriate Havi and Ahmednasir. The two simultaneously confronted the judge, with Havi saying they were rejecting the orders and Ahmednasir alleging that the court had played a trick.

Justice Lenaola's application to have the Chief Justice empanel a bench of more than three judges to hear the case also seemed to fan the fire.

Senior lawyer Ochieng Oduol's plea for decorum fell on deaf ears, as Havi asserted that they were being treated to a charade.

“How can petitioner empanel a bench? We reject these orders!’’ said Havi as Ahmednasir added: “You have fallen to the tricks of the petitioners.”

Justice Mugambi urged the two to comply with the orders and come for a hearing on whether Justice Koome should appoint an expanded bench to hear Justice Lenaola’s case.

Havi shot back that they would not comply, adding that the Judge was ‘making it difficult for them to pursue the cases lawfully’.

Then, Ochieng, who is representing Justice Ouko, urged the two to calm down.

“ Let us try to maintain decorum in court. What the judge has said is that there is an application in the file, and there is no need to shout at the judge,” said Ochieng.

Havi responded, “ We refuse to agree.”

 Ochieng continued: “We are not here for a shouting match; let us behave in a civil manner.”

 “ We can also deal with it in an uncivil manner. We are not handicapped in that. Let us have the order minuted and sent; we will no longer engage in a charade,” Havi added.

Justice Mugambi maintained that parties should comply with the orders.

Havi represented himself in the cases as an interested party while Ahmednasir appeared on behalf of his three associates, Omar Athman, Hilda Mulwa and Jemimah Aileen.

On the other hand, the CJ was represented by senior lawyer George Oraro, Rabik Arora, James Chepkwon and Alphonse Oduor, while Justice Lenaola’s lawyers were Dr. Ken Nyaundi, Dudley Ochiel and Faith Lukoye.

Justice Njoki was represented by Mukite Musangi while Ochieng represented Justice Njoki.

In the meantime, senior lawyer Paul Nyamodi, Duncan Okatch and Diamond Amutavi appeared on behalf of Dari Limited, Tuju and his children.

The other party in the case, Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA), was represented by Kiragu wathuta.

This comes as Justice Lenaola received support from the Katiba Institute. The human rights lobby argued that the commission ought to have a clear and predictable process for removing judges from office.

In the reply filed by lawyer Malidzo Nyawa, Katiba argued that the commission had no powers to entertain or review judge’s decisions.

Katiba maintained that the removal process, as is currently being conducted, is unclear and can be abused.

It further argued that the commission erred by ordering the Judge to respond without fist ascertaining whether petitions for removal were merited or not.

“The first respondent was constitutionally required to conduct a preliminary constitutional threshold inquiry to satisfy itself that the complaint does not ask it to conduct a meritorious review of a judge’s decision. By requiring the petitioner to respond to the complaint before conducting the constitutional threshold question, the first respondent, JSC, fell into an unconstitutional error,” said Katiba’s litigation manager Emily Kinama in her supporting affidavit.

She asserted that the direction taken by the commission would erode judicial independence.

In the meantime, JSC has hired Ahmednasir Law firm’s associates’ lawyer, Issa Mansur, to defend it in the cases.

Issa represents Christopher Rosana, Asli Osman, Peter Muchoki, Irene Jelahat, Esther Amboko, Cohen Kyampene and Khadijah Said in a separate case where they sued the Supreme Court Judges, arguing that they were condemned unheard.

Yesterday, Issa told the court that he had sent a draft reply to JSC for a review before he files it in court.

In a separate case, High Court Judge Bahati Mwamuye barred the commission from hearing a petition to remove his colleague, Justice Dorah Chepkwony from office.

The Judge issued the orders in a case filed lawyer Kennedy Echesa Lubengu. In the case, Lubengu sued the commission and the lawyer who had filed the petition, Aldrin Ojiambo.

Lubengo’s contentions were similar to those raised by the Supreme Court Judges.

He argued that the commission had no powers to hear petitions based on the merits of judges and magistrate’s judgments or rulings.

According to him, JSC’s decision to have the judge respond to the petition filed by Acord Law Advocates LLP set a dangerous precedent: JSC was encroaching upon the Judiciary's powers to determine cases without external interference.

“ Public interest compels urgent intervention because allowing the unconstitutional proceedings before the first respondent to proceed will continue to embolden vexatious litigants to misuse the JSC as a pseudo-appellate forum to challenge judicial decisions, weaponize the JSC to threaten and undermine judicial independence, destabilize the judiciary and foster a climate of intimidation against judges,” argued Lubengo.