Attorney General Githu Muigai who is being accused by Deputy Chief Justice Kalpana Rawal of meeting with Justice Milton Makhandia discussed her appeal.
Judicial Service Commission has asked the court of appeal to disregard submission’s by Deputy Chief Justice Kalpana Rawal that Attorney General and Justice Milton Makhandia discussed her appeal.

JSC through senior counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi said that amounts to cheap gossip and rumors which are meant to scuttle and scandalize the court

JSC urged the court to find that she has committed perjury and must recommend Director of Public Prosecutions Keriako Tobiko to investigate and institute charges against the DCJ.

He said the application by DCJ to disqualify Justice Makhandia is meant to delay the disposal of the case in which Rawal is asking the court to quash a decision of the high court she retire.

This coming in the wake of an application by Kalpana Rawal who wants justice Milton Makhandia one of the seven judges hearing her case where she appealed against her retirement at age of 70 to withdraw himself from the case.

Rawal claims that Makhandia met with the Attorney General Githu Muigai at night on the 5th/6th of February in Karen where they discussed on how to dismiss her case.

Two Supreme Court judges have accused Attorney- General (AG) Githu Muigai of secretly meeting with a Court of Appeal judge to influence the outcome of their retirement age dispute.

Deputy Chief Justice Kalpana Rawal and Justice Philip Tunoi claim that Prof Muigai has been meeting with Justice Milton Makhandia at the Karen County Club to hatch a plot on how to dismiss their appeal against a decision to retire them at 70.

“I am aware that Prof Muigai and Justice Makhandia regularly discuss judiciary affairs at the club. My appeal has been the subject of discussion between both of them and other judicial officers. I am therefore apprehensive that Justice Makhandia cannot be impartial in the dispute,” swore Justice Tunoi.

Justice Rawal made the same claims, forcing the adjournment of the hearing of her appeal after her lawyers George Oraro and Kioko Kilukumi insisted that Justice Makhandia disqualifies himself from the bench.

According to the two judges, the AG and other forces within the Judiciary have conspired to direct the proceeds and influence public opinion to force them out of the Supreme Court.

Senior counsel Dr.John Khaminwa who is appearing as a friend of the court in the appeal case by Deputy Chief Justice Kalpana Rawal on retirement age has hit out at the judges saying that they should not at any time be seen to be mingling with either the executive or the legislature.

He submitted this in the case where Rawal wants Justice Milton Makhandia to withdraw from the case claiming that Makhandia met the Attorney General Githu Muigai at night on the 6th of February in Karen where they decided that her appeal should be dismissed.

In his submissions Dr.Khaminwa in the case where Deputy Chief Justice Kalpana Rawal wants Judge Milton Makhandia to recuse from the appeal on the retirement age blasted the judges saying that they have put judiciary in disrepute by their actions.

Khaminwa submitted that that judges must not hold any meetings with members of the National assembly or even the executive in their personal capacities.

However Nairobi activist Okiya Omtata argued that Rawal has not tendered any evidence to back up her claims.

Justice Tunoi’s lawyer Fred Ngatia argued that Prof Muigai has held a hard-line position that all judges must retire at 70, and his meeting with Justice Makhandia to discuss the dispute shows he wants to influence the judge to take a similar position.

“Prof Muigai is a member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and wrote an opinion which was extremely partisan. Despite taking a partisan position in the dispute, he wanted to be joined in the case but the court declined,” said Ngatia.

Judge Tunoi also want the presiding judge of the Court of Appeal bench, Justice GBM Kariuki to disqualify himself on grounds that he had fined the judge (Kariuki) Sh500, 000 for contempt of court in 1994.

The ruling on the application will be made on the 11th of March.