Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court Justice Willy Mutunga who has been petitioned to order review of the hearing of an application by Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission seeking stay of contempt proceeding against its top officer.
Chief Justice Willy Mutunga has been petitioned to order review of the hearing of an application by Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission seeking stay of contempt proceeding against its top officer.

The aggrieved party Mr Henry Morara Ongwenyi, wants the CJ to act administratively by appointing another bench to hear the appeal application by EACC which had been ordered by Employment and Labour Relations court’s to reinstate him.

He says that appellate judges Justice Erastus Githinji, Martha Koome and Festus Azangala heard the appeal application without his representation and proceeded to issue an order stopping contempt application against the EACC’s deputy secretary Mr Michael Mubea.

That is coming up for hearing on December 14 before the Labour court.

Mr Ongwenyi through his lawyers Harun Ndubi and Kwame Nkruma, says that appeal application by EACC had been listed to be heard on December 7 at 2 PM.

The lawyers in their compliant letter to CJ, says that appellate choose to hear the application in morning same days without the representation of Mr Ongwenyi whose judgement is being challenged by the commission.

“The matter should have not been heard in the Morning of December 7, when the registry and through a notice to parties were informed that the appeal application was to be heard inter parties at 2 PM.

EACC deputy executive officer Mr Mubea is reacquired to appear in court to show cause why action should not be taken against him for disobeying as court order

The order required the reinstatement its former employee has not been complied with by the commission officers.

Employment and Labour Relations presiding judge Justice Mathew Nduma Nderi had issued orders after he was informed that the two officers of EACC have not complied with judgment of the court dated August 19.

The judge ordered him to appear in court on October 30 to explain why he has not have not reinstated Mr Henry Morara Ongwenyi to his position as education officer 1.

Mr Ongwenyi through lawyers Harun Ndubi and Kwame Nkruma, told the court that the officer has totally ignored the orders of the court and the only avenue available is to punish him.

Lady Justice Maureen Onyango had found and held that the dismissal of Mr Ongwe nyi was unlawful and can not be compensated by way of damages.

The judge had given the commission 14 days to comply with the court’s orders, by reinstating him to his position which he held in 2014 when the commission purported to terminate his employment

The dismissal of the petitioner by EACC was unfair and both substantively for failure to give reasons for termination of his employment” the judge said.

The court found that EACC had colluded the office of the director of criminal investigations by using state machinery to intimidate the petitioner who had applied for the position of deputy director.

The judge said damages provided for under the employment Act for loss of employment would not adequately compensate the petitioner for the tribulation he was subjected, saying that restatements must be accompanied with his benefits

During the hearing of the petition his lawyers told the court that petitioner was employed by the commission on 6th March 2006 as education officer on renewable fixed term contract.

The lawyers told the trial judge that in 18 May 2014 anonymous persons sent emails making allegations of impunity, corruption, incompetence and general impropriety against several officials of the commission.

The said allegations were sent through an email which management of the commission purported to have come from the petitioner.

They submitted that the summary dismissal was unconstitutional, illegal and malicious and was actuated by a personal vendetta perpetuated by two former commissioners.

The court found the allegations against the petitioner lacking evidence and facts to warrant the dismissal of the petitioners.