Embattled Embu Governor Martin Wambora has four months to secure his job for the remainder of his term or be kicked out in November.
The Court of Appeal Friday ruled that Mr Wambora has four months to prove his case or else his deputy Dorothy Nditi, will assume office for the remainder of the term.
A three judge bench ruled: “We allow the applicant’s (Wambora) motion to the extent of issuing a conservatory order for him to remain in office and continue to exercise his powers as Governor of Embu County for a limited period of four months effective from date thereof.”
Justices John Mwera, Hannah Okwengu and GBM Kariuki in their landmark 24-page ruling noted that the governor had secured his lifeline in courts for a year since his first impeachment in April last year.
“Wambora has remained in office pursuant to orders issued by the High Court. There were a conservatory order issued by the High Court in May last year pending the hearing of the consolidated petition and an order issued by the High Court in February this year after the dismissal of the consolidated petition for the maintenance of the status quo for a period of 14 days to enable Wambora move to this court.”
READ MORE
Judges freeze Ahmednasir ban case before High Court
Senate clerk seeks to halt case against Keroche
High Court strikes out rules giving CA powers on television content
KAA board did not approve Adani deal, aviation workers tell court
The judges said they had to limit the time-line to dispose off the case as litigants would use the process to finish their terms in office.
“Wambora was elected Governor for a five-year term effective March 2013, which means almost half the term is gone. We take judicial notice of the fact that litigation in courts can drag for a long time and a situation may arise where the court process may be manipulated or abused, so that the appeal remains pending until after the applicant’s term in office expires,” the judges noted.
The judges affirmed that the time frame is rather stringent, but this has been necessitated by the public interest involved in the matter and need to conclude the matter.
“At the end of the day, the quest in all these cases is justice and it is the duty of the court to guard against the dispensation of justice becoming pyrrhic and scandalous,” they ruled.
