Lead Assisting Counsel Nazima Malik sought to prove that Kamlesh Pattni – through his lawyer Bernard Kalove – schemed to have Pattni’s application, for orders barring his continued prosecution over the Sh5.8 billion Goldenberg affair, heard by Mutava/FILE
NAIROBI, Kenya, Apr 26 – The advocate who represented the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Goldenberg case presided over by Judge Joseph Mbalu Mutava in 2012 testified on Tuesday that he did not object to a Judicial Review matter being handled in the Commercial Division.
The Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions James Mungai Warui told the tribunal looking into Mutava’s conduct that he was too inexperienced in High Court matters to know any different.
“Myself I’m involved in anti-corruption cases in the lower courts. I rarely go the High Court unless I’m following a matter like this one which I was handling in the lower court. So I didn’t know who was in which division of the High Court. So when I was served with a mention notice to appear before Justice Mutava I didn’t bother to look behind the notice to find whether Justice Mutava is in that division,” he testified.
He also said he could not recall fellow advocate Nelson Havi applying for the file to be placed before a judge in the Judicial Review Division until the chair of the tribunal, Court of Appeal Judge David Magara, made reference to Mutava’s recording of the proceedings.
Through Warui’s testimony, Lead Assisting Counsel Nazima Malik sought to prove that Kamlesh Pattni – through his lawyer Bernard Kalove – schemed to have Pattni’s application, for orders barring his continued prosecution over the Sh5.8 billion Goldenberg affair, heard by Mutava.
Kalove, she had already established, wrote to the Deputy Registrar sitting in the Milimani Law Courts seeking to have their file placed before Mutava for the reason that “all parties” needed clarification on the ex-parte orders for stay he made on August 10, 2012 during the judges’ vacation period.
Clarifications which Warui told the tribunal were neither sought nor needed.
He testified that the copy of the letter he received from Kalove did not raise points for clarification and simply notified him to appear before Mutava.
“The difference between the two letters is the first paragraph. This one it talks about some clarifications to be made. My letter we were just called to appear before the judge for direction,” he testified.
The tribunal thereafter acceded to Mutava’s application for an adjournment to allow him and its secretariat prepare for a court date before High Court judge Joseph Onguto.
Mutava has applied to have Onguto stop the tribunal from sitting on the grounds that it no longer retains the jurisdiction to determine his suitability to continue serving as a judge.
About The Author
