Three technology firms have sued the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) for Sh8 trillion, accusing 10 judges of misconduct and negligence in handling a protracted employment dispute that resulted in property losses.
In the civil suit before the High Court in Milimani, Nairobi, Skytop Technologies Limited, Skytop Mcarfix Limited and Demoscad Limited are jointly seeking more than $62.3 billion (Sh8 trillion) in damages. They claim the Judiciary’s actions cost them business opportunities and assets that were later auctioned.
The claim — equivalent to twice Kenya’s annual national budget — is unprecedented in judicial liability cases. While allegations of judicial misconduct are serious, legal analysts note that trillion-shilling damages claims are exceedingly rare and face steep evidentiary hurdles.
The JSC, chaired by Chief Justice Martha Koome, has opposed the suit, arguing it cannot be held liable for judicial decisions made by judges.
“Allowing unlimited civil liability against the JSC for judicial decisions or routine court administration would risk undermining judicial independence and impairing the constitutional functions of the Judiciary and the Commission,” the JSC states in its response.
Acting Registrar Isaac Wamaasa, filing on behalf of the Commission, adds that the plaintiffs’ grievances relate to administrative decisions of judicial officers. He urges the court to proceed with caution and avoid converting administrative complaints into civil claims.
“The constitutional principle of separation of powers and judicial independence requires caution before transforming administrative complaints about judicial processes into broad civil and commercial tort claims against the JSC,” he says in court papers.
The plaintiffs have named several judges in their filings. However, this publication withholds their identities as they are not respondents in the case.
The JSC has been sued in its capacity as their employer. This article relies solely on the plaintiffs’ pleadings, and since the judges are not parties to the suit, they will not have an opportunity to defend themselves .The case stems from the alleged mishandling of an employment dispute four years ago, with the petitioners citing judicial impropriety through bias, negligence and denial of a fair hearing.
They further argue the courts delayed ruling on an urgent application to stop the auction of their computers, software, furniture and other equipment, leading to heavy losses.
The plaintiffs also accuse CJ Koome of failing to act on complaints of misconduct and bias against judges and judicial staff, contrary to her oath of office. They allege entrenched impunity within the Judiciary.
Injustice and heavy losses
They claim CJ Koome, as head of the Judiciary, failed to curb entrenched impunity and malpractice despite their repeated complaints, saying this led to gross injustice and heavy losses.
Together with their director, Mr Paniel Mwaura, they further claim they were harassed by staff and police officers at the Chief Justice’s office when they sought her intervention.
The dispute began in 2019 when former Skytop Technologies employee Alexander Wanjau Muriuki sued the company at the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi. In 2021, the court ordered Skytop to pay him Sh1.4 million in salary arrears and costs. To recover the sum, an auctioneer seized property belonging to Skytop Mcarfix Limited, an affiliate of Skytop Technologies.
Mcarfix challenged the attachment, but in 2023 the court dismissed its objection, ruling that the firm had not proved ownership of the seized assets. Dissatisfied, Mcarfix’s lawyers filed a notice of appeal on May 3, 2023. On November 30, another judge granted leave to file the appeal out of time, finding the matter arguable and noting that the earlier ruling had failed to address the distinction between Skytop Technologies and Skytop Mcarfix.
Mr Muriuki opposed the application for leave to appeal, telling the court it had been overtaken by events since the attached goods had already been sold to satisfy the decree.
In their new suit, however, the three companies and their director, Mr Paniel Mwaura, argue that the judge failed to act when they raised concerns about the conduct of the auctioneers. They further contend that a seven-month delay — from May to November 2023 — in delivering a ruling on the leave application exposed them to significant financial loss.
“The property Skytop and Mcarfix were seeking to save after the attachment had already been auctioned by the auctioneers,” their pleadings state.
At another court, the plaintiffs accuse four judges and a deputy registrar of frustrating their case. They allege that the registry deliberately stalled proceedings and that the court’s president failed to act promptly despite being repeatedly notified of alleged malpractice by judicial staff.
Their grievance against the Court of Appeal is that Skytop was misled into believing no hearing date had been set for their appeal.
The appeal was dismissed for non-attendance, later reinstated, and ultimately withdrawn with costs awarded to the decree holder — a sequence of events the plaintiffs say deepened their financial burden and distress.
The plaintiffs further allege that, in addition to being denied the opportunity to prosecute their appeal, their advocate was “coerced and intimidated” into withdrawing it on technical grounds. These claims, though recorded in court filings, have not been independently verified.
They contend that judicial officers breached the Judicial Code of Conduct and Ethics, and accuse the JSC of inaction despite their formal complaints on alleged improprieties.
“On the whole, the defendant has conducted itself as an entity that has abdicated the constitutional and legal mandate entrusted to it. It has failed to curb malpractices and the entrenched impunity rife within the Judiciary and other bodies under its control,” the plaintiffs argue.
The JSC, however, rejects the allegations. It denies conspiring with judicial officers or private actors to “defeat the cause of justice” and insists it cannot be held vicariously liable for alleged offences such as forgery, perjury or fraud.
“Where misconduct by specific court officers or private actors — including auctioneers, advocates, process servers and registrars — is alleged, the proper defendants are those individuals, their professional bodies, or the criminal courts,” says Acting Registrar Isaac Wamaasa in the Commission’s response.
He adds that the plaintiffs failed to join necessary parties, rendering the suit “frivolous and without merit.”
According to Mr Wamaasa, many of the events cited by the plaintiffs — including rulings, adjournments, recusals and orders issued in the employment and appeal cases — were judicial acts performed in the exercise of official functions. Such acts, he stresses, attract constitutional and common-law immunities.
“They are not actionable torts against the JSC as the appointing or supervisory body. The JSC neither directs judicial decision-making nor assumes personal liability for acts performed by judges and judicial officers. Allegations of judicial misconduct must follow the disciplinary procedures set out in the Constitution, the Judicial Service Act and the Code of Conduct, which safeguard both due process and judicial independence,” he states.
Mr Wamaasa further discloses that the plaintiffs lodged a similar complaint with the JSC in 2023, which was considered and dismissed in March 2024. The case is scheduled for hearing on October 3, 2025.
