The High Court has temporarily suspended the appointment of retired Judge Erastus Githinji as the chair of Tax Appeals Tribunals Board.
The suspension came after the Law Society of Kenya(LSK) threatened to sue the Treasury CS should the retired judge be sworn in as the chairman of the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
The LSK argued that Justice Githinji was not qualified to chair the tribunal because Section 4(3) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act requires that the chairperson be a person qualified to be appointed as a judge of the High Court.
Justice Githinji was, therefore, unqualified to chair the tribunals' boards as qualifications for the appointment of a judge are set out in Article 166(5) of the Constitution, which requires a High Court judge to retire at the age of 70.
Mr Githinji who was born on December 30, 1949, attained the age of 70 last year and subsequently retired from the judiciary.
The LSK in a letter to the Treasury CS, though it's president Nelson Havi wanted the revocation of the gazette notice dated April 15 by the Treasury CS Mr Ukur Yatani informing the public of Mr Githinjis appointment due attaining the required age limit of a judge to retire.
Mr Havi had also asked the retired judge to reject the appointment in good faith as he was ineligible for appointment as a judge of superior court effective January 1, 2020.
“The specialised nature of the Tax Appeals Tribunal would require that an advocate with academic and professional qualifications and experience in tax law and procedure be appointed,” said Havi.
On April 11th, 2019 Justice Githinji won a court case filed at the Employment and Labour Relations Court against the Judicial Service Commission, stopping them from effecting a July 1, 2019 retirement notice arguing that he was yet to attain the retirement age of 70 years and the action would expose him to great prejudice including criminal liability as he might be accused of falsifying his date of birth.
In June 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that judges must retire at 70 years and not 74 as was the case in the old Constitution.
