The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has formally appealed a ruling from the High Court, arguing that it “constrains” its constitutional mandate to hold judges responsible.

The Commission stated its “considered dissatisfaction” with the decision in Constitutional Petition No. E110 of 2025 in a statement issued on December 24, 2025.

The Commission stated that the ruling has a direct impact on how it handles and processes petitions for the removal of judges, even though it did not identify the particular judge or case in question.

“The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has taken note of the judgment delivered by the High Court in Constitutional Petition No. E110 of 2025 relating to the discharge of its constitutional mandate in the consideration and management of petitions against Judges, Part of the statement read.

It adds, “As a constitutional commission established under Article 171 of the Constitution, the JSC is expressly mandated under Article 172 to safeguard and advance judicial independence and accountability.”

The interpretation of Article 168 of the Constitution is at the center of the dispute.

Also Read: Judiciary Bribery Trial Stalls After EACC Lost Evidence

Article 168 of the Constitution

A judge of a superior court may be removed from office only on the grounds of—
(a) inability to perform the functions of office arising from mental or physical incapacity;
(b) a breach of a code of conduct prescribed for judges of the superior courts by an Act of Parliament;
(c) bankruptcy;
(d) incompetence; or
(e) gross misconduct or misbehavior.
(2) The removal of a judge may be initiated only by the Judicial Service Commission acting on its own motion, or on the petition of any person to the Judicial Service Commission.
(3) A petition by a person to the Judicial Service Commission under clause (2) shall be in writing, setting out the alleged facts constituting the grounds for the judge’s removal.
(4) The Judicial Service Commission shall consider the petition and, if it is satisfied that the petition discloses a ground for removal under clause (1), send the petition to the President.
(5) The President shall, within fourteen days after receiving the petition, suspend the judge from office and, acting in accordance with the recommendation of the
Judicial Service Commission—
(a) In the case of the Chief Justice, appoint a tribunal consisting of—
(i) the Speaker of the National Assembly, as chairperson;
(ii) three superior court judges from common-law jurisdictions; (iii) one advocate of fifteen years standing; and
(iv) two other persons with experience in public affairs
This article describes the process for removing a judge from office and grants the JSC the authority to accept, review, and decide on removal petitions.

Also Read: Judiciary Bribery Trial Stalls After EACC Lost Evidence

According to reports, the High Court’s recent decision limited the JSC’s ability to use this authority. The Commission responded by claiming that its mandate is a “critical pillar” of Kenya’s constitutional framework.

“The Commission registers its considered dissatisfaction with aspects of the judgment, which, in its assessment, constrain the discharge of the Commission’s constitutional mandate under Article 168,” the statement read.

The JSC further reassured the public that it remains “unwavering in its commitment to uphold the Constitution.” The Commission stated that filing an appeal is a lawful avenue provided by the legal framework when a party is dissatisfied with a judicial determination.

“This step is taken in the public interest and for the purpose of obtaining guidance on the proper interpretation and application of Article 168 of the Constitution,” the statement concluded.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel and WhatsApp Community for instant news updates

Last session of Lawyers who were admitted to the roll of Advocates
PHOTO/Judiciary/X