Judiciary Wins Big: Court Declares Uhuru Violated Judges’ Rights

The High Court has ordered the government to pay Sh102.5 million in compensation to 41 judges who were not appointed by former President Uhuru Kenyatta, ruling that their constitutional rights were violated.

In a landmark judgment that revisits one of the most contentious episodes in Kenya’s recent judicial history, the court found that the delay and refusal to appoint the judges amounted to an infringement of their rights and undermined the independence of the Judiciary.

The 41 judges had been duly nominated by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and their names forwarded to the President for formal appointment.

However, their swearing-in was delayed for months, sparking a public standoff between the Executive and the Judiciary.

In its ruling, the High Court held that once the JSC had completed its constitutional mandate and recommended the nominees, the President had a legal obligation to formalize the appointments without undue delay.

The court determined that the failure to do so violated the judges’ legitimate expectations, their right to fair administrative action, and principles of constitutional governance.

The judges were eventually appointed after sustained public pressure and legal action, but the prolonged delay had already disrupted their careers and personal lives.

Some were unable to assume office, draw salaries, or discharge their judicial functions during the impasse.

Also read

• Breaking: Nairobi County and National Government Cooperation Gets Full Legislator Support
• No Toll, No Worries: Ndindi Nyoro Promises Free Roads for Kenyans
• Museveni Drops the Hammer on Illegal Builders, New Law Means Heavy Fines and Jail Time!
• Judiciary Wins Big: Court Declares Uhuru Violated Judges’ Rights
• Ruto Fires Warning to MCAs at KICC: “Make Devolution Work or Be Accountable!"

The court awarded Sh102.5 million in general damages to be shared among the 41 judges, citing emotional distress, reputational harm, and financial uncertainty caused by the delay.

It emphasized that constitutional offices must be exercised within the bounds of the law and cannot be used to frustrate other arms of government.

Legal analysts say the ruling reinforces the doctrine of separation of powers and sends a strong message about the limits of presidential discretion.

The court stressed that while the President plays a formal role in judicial appointments, that role does not extend to revisiting or second guessing the JSC’s recommendations without lawful justification.

The judgment also underscored the importance of safeguarding judicial independence, describing it as a cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law.

By holding the state financially accountable, the court signaled that violations of constitutional rights by public authorities carry tangible consequences.

The Attorney General’s office has yet to indicate whether the government will appeal the decision.

However, the ruling is likely to reignite debate over executive authority in judicial appointments and the broader balance of power within Kenya’s constitutional framework.

For the 41 judges, the decision marks both vindication and closure in a prolonged constitutional battle that tested the resilience of Kenya’s institutions.