The Supreme Court dismissed a petition to have Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala and Njoki Ndung'u recuse themselves from the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) appeal hearing.
On Tuesday, November 9, the notice of motion application dated October 26, 2021, was found as lacking in merit and disallowed in the ruling read by Deputy Chief Justice, Philomena Mwilu.
The application by Isaac Aluochier sought recusal of three judges from hearing the BBI Appeal but the Court termed litigants claims of bias and impartiality far fetched and speculative.
“The applicant having instituted the petition before JSC it should be allowed to take its course since the commission is an independent body. The notice of motion lacks in merit and is disallowed," Justice Mwilu stated.
Aluochier wanted Justices Ndungu, Wanjala and Ibrahim to recuse themselves arguing he had filed a petition before JSC for their removal.
He stated that the BBI appeal should be resolved by an impartial bench of judges and the three judges appear not to be impartial in the matter before the court.
The Supreme Court also consolidated three petitions: AG vs David Ndii, 73 others, IEBC vs David Ndii, 81 others, and lawyer Omokes vs Uhuru Kenyatta and 83 others.
Further, the SCOK directed petition number 12 of AG vs David Ndii and 73 others to serve as lead files in the proceedings.
Aluochier claimed that the trio could be biased against him because he had initially sought their removal from office over alleged gross misconduct.
Court documents presented by the petitioner indicated that in April 2016 he petitioned the JSC for the removal of six Supreme Court judges.
The petitioner stated that the high moral character and integrity of the Supreme Court, all judges sitting on the bench resolving the BBI dispute should have no circumstances around them that question their impartiality.
He admitted his application will delay the BBI case but further stated that the JSC was to blame for not responding to his petition.
Aluochier noted that the BBI case was of great public interest and should be heard and determined expeditiously and the JSC can subject his petition to alternative forms of dispute resolution.
