Chief Justice Dr Willy Mutunga.


The Judiciary has strongly denied that Chief Justice Dr Willy Mutunga’s appointment was doctored after consultations with the former Prime Minister Raila Odinga and an approval by the 10th parliament.

Chief Registrar of the Judiciary Ms Anne Amadi in a response to allegations by a lawyer told the court that “It is therefore incorrect for the petitioner to claim that the appointment 1st respondent as the chief justice of the supreme court of Kenya was doctored by any person more so one Ahmednasir Abdullahi.”

She said that the process that led to the appointment of the CJ was competitive and transparent in that then President Mwai Kibaki subject to National Accord and Reconciliation Act and after consultation with the former Prime Minister and with the approval of the national assembly, which upon interrogation of Dr Mutunga duly approved his appointment.

The lawyer, Michael Osundwa Swaka had sued CJ Mutunga alleging that various transfers he made to judges were manipulated by SC Ahmednasir Abdullahi.

Ms Amadi said that the transfer of judges was not intended to pre-empt the posting of judges prior to the CJ’s early retirement which is entirely a voluntary decision.

Dr Mutunga, she said did it in good faith and in lawful performance of his judicial duty.

“The petition herein is incompetent and vexatious and raises no cause of action capable of determination by this honourable court,” the registrar said.

Ms Amadi added that the discretion to transfer judges is vested in the Chief Justice pursuant to the Constitution, the Judicial Service Act and the High Court (Organisation and Administrative) Act.

She also challenged the aggrieved lawyer to address the issue of appointment of the CJ in the relevant forum that have been put in place and that he should refrain from abusing the court process.

Through her lawyer Okongo Omogeni, the registrar said that in the transfer the CJ took into account the newly created High Court stations which were geared towards bringing justice closer to the people.

Mr Omogeni held that the transfer of judges will lead to the clearing of case backlog as opposed to creating a backlog of cases as alluded to by the petitioner.

He also denied allegations that the CJ was contemplating the allocation of specific files to certain judges.

The petitioner has not demonstrated any prejudice to be occasioned whatsoever either by the actions of the CJ or by the court declining to grant conservatory orders sought.

Ms Amadi consequently asked the High Court to dismiss the suit.