NAIROBI, Kenya Oct 2 – The High Court has quashed notices issued by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) requiring seven Supreme Court judges to respond to complaints seeking their removal, finding that the commission failed to conduct the required preliminary assessment before setting the removal process in motion.A three-judge bench comprising Justices Charles Kariuki, Lawrence Mugambi and Bahati Mwamuye declared the JSC’s communications, notices and directions arising from the complaints unconstitutional, null and void.The court also barred the commission from taking further steps on the complaints or commencing or continuing proceedings based on the same set of facts.The decision affects complaints targeting Chief Justice Martha Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu and Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko.At the centre of the dispute was the manner in which the JSC handled three petitions seeking the removal of the seven judges. One of the complaints was filed by former Law Society of Kenya president Nelson Havi, who accused the judges of misconduct and misbehaviour and sought the initiation of the constitutional process for their removal.The judges challenged the JSC’s decision to require them to respond, arguing that the commission should first determine whether the complaints disclosed any of the constitutional grounds for removal before putting them to the judges.The High Court agreed, holding that the JSC was required to undertake a preliminary appraisal of complaints before requiring a judge to answer them.The court said such an assessment was necessary to determine whether a complaint met the constitutional threshold for removal and to prevent frivolous or vexatious complaints from being used to subject judges to unnecessary proceedings.The judges also found that the JSC’s approach failed to adequately safeguard the affected judges’ right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution.The notices issued by the commission on January 27, 2025, were found wanting because they largely communicated the complaints and required the judges to respond within 21 days without sufficiently setting out the factual allegations and the specific constitutional grounds on which removal was being sought.The court held that a judge could not reasonably be expected to respond to a broad collection of allegations without being told precisely which grounds under Article 168(1) were alleged to have been breached.Article 168 provides the constitutional framework for removal of judges and sets out the grounds, including inability to perform the functions of office, breach of a code of conduct, bankruptcy, incompetence and gross misconduct or misbehaviour.The High Court further faulted the JSC for dealing with the seven judges collectively through what it described as an omnibus process, rather than identifying the allegations and grounds applicable to each judge.The court also questioned whether the JSC had demonstrated that the decision requiring the judges to respond had been made through a properly convened meeting of the commission.The judges had challenged the JSC’s assertion that a subcommittee had considered the complaints and made recommendations which were subsequently adopted on January 24, 2025. They argued that the commission had not produced sufficient minutes, deliberations or resolutions to demonstrate how the decision was reached.The court consequently issued an order of certiorari, quashing the January 27, 2025 notices together with related communications, decisions, actions and proceedings arising from the three JSC petitions.It also issued an order of prohibition, restraining the JSC, its agents and anyone acting on its behalf from taking further action based on the impugned notices or complaints founded on the same facts.The ruling, however, did not strip the JSC of its constitutional mandate to receive and consider complaints against judges.Instead, the court affirmed that the commission’s mandate under Article 168 must be exercised within the Constitution and the law, including the requirements of fair administrative action.The judgment also rejected the suggestion that the JSC’s actions were beyond scrutiny by the courts. The High Court held that it has jurisdiction to examine whether the commission has acted within the limits of the Constitution, the Judicial Service Act and the principles of fair administrative action.The dispute had previously resulted in interim orders stopping the JSC from proceeding against the seven judges. In April 2025, the High Court found that the consolidated petitions raised substantial constitutional questions, including whether the JSC was required to screen complaints before requiring judges to respond.Among the questions identified at the time was whether the JSC could entertain complaints challenging the merits of judicial decisions and whether processing such complaints without first determining their validity could undermine judicial independence.