Sonko’s Petition Dismissed: High Court Rejects Appeal
Former Governor of Nairobi Mike Sonko suffered a setback when the High Court dismissed his petition against the Supreme Court alleging a violation of his political rights.
Justice Olga Sewe ruled in Mombasa that the court lacked the authority to hear the petition.
Justice Sewe stated, “Since this petition sounds more like a request for judicial review than a violation of the constitutional right to a fair hearing, it falls outside the court’s jurisdiction under Article 165(6) of the Constitution.”
In his petition, Mr. Sonko requested, among other things, that his case be reheard by the Supreme Court, where he was challenging his impeachment as governor of Nairobi.
The judge noted that one of the requested reliefs was a declaration that the Supreme Court’s ruling in a petition in which Mr. Sonko challenged his impeachment was void.
Justice Sewe stated that she found merit in the Supreme Court’s preliminary objection to the petition, thereby upholding the objection and dismissing the petition.
In instances where the constitution restricts the court’s authority to entertain certain remedies against particular parties, she stated that courts must be vigilant and determine what the primary issue is before proceeding to avoid absurdity.
Justice Sewe referenced Article 165 (6), which limits the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction to inferior courts as opposed to superior courts.
ALSO READ: Pastor Ezekiel Draws Crowds: Nairobi CBD Streets Filled with Followers (PHOTOS)
Mr. Sonko had argued that the Supreme Court, as an organ of the state. Can be sued and sued if it violates a person’s constitutional rights through its decisions.
Mr. Sonko, through his attorneys John Khaminwa and Derrick Odhiambo. Argued that the High Court had the authority to fault any court for a violation of rights and was therefore required to uphold them (rights).
Dr. Khaminwa argued that the High Court has the authority to review decisions. If a violation of rights was committed by a court of higher rank.
The petitioner argued that it was undisputed that the Supreme Court is the highest. However, the constitution grants the High Court original, unrestricted jurisdiction. To determine whether an individual or state organ has violated a fundamental right or freedom.
The Supreme Court sought dismissal of Mr. Sonko’s petition, arguing that the High Court lacked the authority to hear it.
ALSO READ: Kenya’s Azimio Initiative and Kwanza Bipartisan Talks Make Progress; IEBC Reconstitution Team Announced
It argued that because the jurisdiction of the High Court was improperly invoked. The petition should be dismissed and the court should “down its tools.”
Through Senior Counsel Charles Kanjama, the country’s highest court. Stated that the High Court should resist Mr. Sonko’s attempt to reopen and litigate matters. That it (the Supreme Court) had already resolved and decided.
Mr. Kanjama informed the court that there is no precedent in the country. In which a Supreme Court decision has been successfully challenged in a lower court based on the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Sonko also desired declarations that his rights to a fair trial and political rights were violated. By the Supreme Court’s denial of his petition for a fair trial and hearing.
In addition, he demanded Sh35 million in compensation for the loss of campaign fund contributions. And Sh15 million in damages for the violation of his right to be heard and his political rights.
Sonko’s Petition Dismissed: High Court Rejects Appeal
HEY READER. PLEASE SUPPORT THIS SITE BY CLICKING ADS. DON’T FORGET TO HIT THE NOTIFICATION BELL FOR MORE UPDATES AROUND THE GLOBE.
