In summary
- Court of Appeal affirms Edward Gichana s Nairobi Assembly substantive Clerk.
- Former Clerk’ petition to stop his ouster in Supreme Court has been dismissed.
Court of Appeal has denied Former Nairobi County Assembly Clerk Jacob Ngwele leave to appeal ruling that affirmed Edward Gichana as substantive Clerk Nairobi County Assembly.
The Court of Appeal had earlier upheld ruling by High Court that affirmed Gichana as duly appointed Clerk of Nairobi Assembly.
According to the Court of Appeal, Ngweles’ petition lacked merit and therefore can not be entertain by the Supreme Court.The court of Appeal also noted that Ngweles’ petition do not hold public interest and it was only satisfying his personal interests.
READ ALSO Court of Appeal Lifts Conservatory Orders Barring Finance Act 2023
“The applicant is not raising any novel issues for determination by the Supreme Court. The issues he is raising in his application have been raised and determined by various courts before and are, in our view, well settled. The issues raised do not transcend the litigation interests of the parties herein, nor do they raise any issues of general public importance. From the 17 circumstances of this case, it is our considered view that there will be no jurisprudential value in having the Supreme Court address itself to the issues identified by the applicants. In the circumstances, the present application is without merit, and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.’’ It states.
It further noted that Ngwele did not did not appeal the decision by the Court of Appeal in the matter within 14 days as stipulated in the constitution.
“Before delving into the merits of the application, we deem it necessary to address the jurisdictional issue raised by the respondents in their replying affidavits. It is contended that the applicant did not file a notice of appeal within the 14 days’ period contemplated under rule 36(1) of the Supreme Court Rules and if he did, then he did not serve it on all parties within 7 days of filing it as per the requirements of rule 37 of the same Court’s Rules.” The ruling reads.
