Twenty two judges have been awarded a total of Sh55 million for violation of their rights after being kept waiting for 21 months to be appointed as judges.
The judges were part of the 41 judicial officers that President Uhuru Kenyatta had declined to appoint to the bench citing undisclosed intelligence reports, while also questioning the character of some of them.
The High Court said President Kenyatta’s unproven assertions, taken alongside his prolonged refusal to appoint them as judges, gravely damaged their self-worth and professional standing as they were portrayed as unethical and thus unworthy of becoming judges.
The court said that to "vindicate their constitutional right to inherent human dignity" under Article 28 and the right to fair administrative action under Article 47, each judge was awarded Sh2.5 million as compensation.
The court said that unwarranted stigmatisation exposed the 22 judges of the Environment and Land Court (ELC) and Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) to public ridicule, with phrases being coined against them.
The court noted that each judge individualised how the delay affected them as a result of the President’s unconstitutional decision of halting their appointment without giving any reasons why, despite the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
“The uncontroverted fact is that they were kept in a state of limbo for 21 months without any written reason whatsoever as to why the respondent had neglected to act on the recommendation of the JSC,” said the court.
The High Court found that the period of 21 months in which they were subjected to a perpetual state of uncertainty after successfully completing interviews was unreasonable, unjustifiable and contrary to respect of human dignity and fairness.
The judges sued the Attorney-General on grounds that the reluctant manner the President failed to act on the recommendation of the JSC regarding their appointment violated their constitutional rights and legitimate expectation.
They submitted that the president had an obligation to appoint them in accordance with JSC’s recommendation, in light of Article 166(1)(b) of the Constitution.
The judges said the public humiliation and the long period of uncertainty caused them loss and damage. They added that they used to work for their respective organisations where they resigned following the JSC’s recommendation of their appointment as judges, only for them to endure 21 months of uncertainty and hardship.
