The High Court has advised lawyer Nelson Havi to refrain from engaging in sideshows during legal proceedings. This follows a contentious session where Havi expressed disappointment with the court’s scheduling of his urgent application regarding the removal of Supreme Court judges.
A three-judge bench, comprising Justices Charles Kariuki, Lawrence Mugambi, and Bahati Mwamuye, is handling seven consolidated petitions seeking the removal of all Supreme Court judges. During the proceedings, the court set October 3, 2025, as the hearing date for a fresh application filed by Havi. He had submitted a certificate of urgency requesting that the bench recuse itself from the petitions, citing concerns about impartiality.
Havi objected to the October hearing date, arguing that the matter was too urgent to be postponed for three months. He stressed that the issue concerned the conduct of Supreme Court judges and should be prioritized accordingly. However, the bench explained that due to judicial schedules, including an upcoming leave for one of the judges, October 3 was the earliest available date.
Despite his frustration, Havi agreed to the scheduled date but voiced his discontent, calling the decision a “disappointment to all advocates practising before the courts.” His comments drew immediate backlash. Senior counsels representing Chief Justice Martha Koome, who is among those named in the petitions, rose in objection. They emphasized that Havi should not speak on behalf of the entire legal fraternity and requested the court to reinforce the importance of maintaining decorum.
Justice Kariuki acknowledged the concerns and reminded all advocates to avoid turning court proceedings into platforms for unnecessary confrontations. He emphasized that the court’s primary role is to dispense justice in an environment free from disruption or personal theatrics.
Havi’s application seeks the disqualification of Justices Kariuki, Mugambi, and Mwamuye from hearing the petitions. He argues that their appointment by Chief Justice Koome, who is one of the respondents in the petitions, presents a conflict of interest. According to him, the Chief Justice should not have had a role in constituting a bench for a matter in which she is directly implicated.
He further maintains that the constitution prohibits a litigant from influencing the selection of judges in a matter where they are personally involved. Therefore, he contends that a new, independent bench should be appointed to ensure impartiality and fairness in the hearings.
The matter continues to generate public interest as it touches on the integrity and independence of Kenya’s highest court, with legal experts closely watching how the judiciary navigates the tensions within its own ranks.
