Kirinyaga Governor Waiguru describes her love life as complicated - Pulse Kenya
Anne Waiguru who is now he current Governor for Kirinyaga county earned her much fame from the fact that she was very close to the president during her time. For the record, I have only one son. I did not support Uhuru Kenyatta because he run for office while still a crimes-against-humanity suspect. now witnessing the likes of Anne Waiguru, “ballers”, Jack Ranguma, KShs. . Kate Beckinsale Checkmates Fan Shaming Her For Pete Davidson Dating Rumors. Kirinyaga Governor Anne Waiguru on Wednesday dropped her defamation President Uhuru Kenyatta's Son is Dating Moi's Grand Daughter.
A very interesting narrative is taking shape in Kenya's latest "war" against corruption. The narrative advances the storyline that: Kenyans are corrupt because Kenyans are corrupt or as someone put it: Everybody was sure Somebody would do it.
Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Now, Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job.
Everybody thought that Anybody could have done it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it. So, it ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done. A coterie of golfing buddies, their families, friends, assorted toadies and self-proclaimed "ballers". The foregoing is respectively evidenced by the on-going scandal at the Department of Devolution and Planning, the recent presidential appointments to various parastatals that included five individuals from one family and details in an article titled " Ballers Running the City: I was born in Kenya and have Kenyan blood running through my veins.
However, I refuse to take responsibility for the actions of the kleptomaniacs running the country.
I also refuse to be grouped with those who repeatedly vote for these kleptocrats because they are "our" "sons" and "daughters". For the record, I have only one son. And no, this is not schadenfreude. It is placing the blame squarely where it belongs: On those who perpetrate and abet the kleptocratic ways of their "sons" and "daughters". I was once asked by an official at JKIA to produce "pages" supposedly "missing" from my passport and an official in Mombasa cajoled me to "ongea vizuri" i.
I waited for over 2 hours to talk to a supervisor before the individual who said that my passport was "missing some pages" relented and waved me through. In Mombasa, I extended my stay for an extra week to oversee the normal and tedious process of releasing a car through customs rather than "ongearing vizuri" and paying the unofficial "expedite fee" requested.
They assert that the 4th respondent is guilty of gross incompetence for failing to protect the affected employees of the Public Service Commission and for endorsing a policy on decentralization of human resource management in the civil service, which, according to the appellants, seeks to unconstitutionally and illegally wrest control of human resources in state departments from the Principal Secretaries and vest the same in Cabinet Secretaries contrary to Articles 2, , and 1 of the Constitution.
Governors Joho, Waiguru And DPP Haji To Be Feted During Jamhuri Day Celebrations -
Amongst other reliefs, the appellants sought declarations, that the 1st respondent had violated the Constitution and statutes; that the 2nd respondent has no power to superintend Principal Secretaries or control or direct the functions of the Public Service Commission; that the irregular removals from and appointments into office in the public service by the 1st and 2nd respondents are unconstitutional and invalid and that the policy on decentralization of human resource management endorsed by the 4th respondent is in violation of Articles and of the Constitution.
The full particulars of the claims by the appellants are set out in great detail in the lengthy petition, which we need not go into for purposes of this appeal.
Together with that petition, the appellants filed a notice of motion, also dated 19th Junein which they sought numerous interlocutory prayers, including: That application was heard, ex parte in the first instance, by the Hon. Lady Justice Onyango, J.
The application was eventually heard inter partes before Nduma, J. Aggrieved, the appellants lodged this appeal. The appeal and submissions Okoiti submitted further that this is a proper case for the ELC to have referred the matter to the Chief Justice to constitute a bench made up of uneven number of judges because a substantial question of law is involved within the meaning of Article 4 of the Constitution.
Okoiti faulted the Judge for following the decision in J. Mehta vs Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. AIR SC Okoiti further argued that the practice by the High Court and courts of equal status in interpreting Article 4 where they subjectively refer matters to the Chief Justice for empanelment of a bench is unsatisfactory and an objective standard should be established.
In that regard, he drew our attention to numerous decisions of the High Court to which we will later make reference in this judgment. He suggested that a distinction should be drawn between matters calling for interpretation of the Constitution and matters relating to the application in addressing this question.
In other words, "substantial" simply means "necessary for the disposal", or that the case turns on constitutional interpretation of an Article of the Constitution which has never been determined in an earlier matter. Okoiti submitted that the matters for determination in Petition No. Nyakina Wycliffe Gisebe, the 2nd appellant, who also appeared in person, adopted the submissions by Mr.
Corruption in Kenya: Sharing the Blame But Not the Wealth!
He however stressed that the intended policy to transfer powers relating to human resources in the public service to Cabinet Secretaries negates professionalism and runs counter to Article 1 a of the Constitution. Opposing the appeal, Mr. Ngatia, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, took us through the background to the appeal.
He submitted that none of the officers affected by the transfers complained or challenged their transfers; that no evidence was presented that those officers authorized the appellants to litigate on their behalf; and that the appellants are outsiders seeking to advance private claims. Counsel urged that the court must bear in mind that certification would result in delay in the disposal of the matter. Furthermore, counsel argued, any party aggrieved by a decision of a single judge would have the right of appeal to this Court.
He referred us to the High Court decision in Martin Nyaga and others v Speaker County Assembly of Embu and 4 others and Amicus Curiae  eKLR and urged that the decision to empanel a bench of more than one judge should be made where it is absolutely necessary in exceptional circumstances; and that in the present case, the issues raised are not of general public importance and neither have the appellants demonstrated how they are affected by the actions complained of.
We have considered the appeal and the submissions. There are essentially two issues. The first is that the matter was irregularly heard before Nduma, J.
That Judge granted interlocutory relief, exparte, and fixed the application for interpartes hearing on 1st July On 1st Julythe matter was placed before Nzioki wa Makau, J. None of the parties appear to have been present on that occasion. That Judge directed that the matter be mentioned before Onyango, J. On 3rd JulyOnyango J.
Uhuru and Waiguru: I suspect there's more than meet the eye-Prof Makau Mutua - Entertainment News
A further adjournment was on 24th July granted by Onyango, J. Interim orders were extended. During the mention on 31st JulyOnyango, J. On 15th Augustthe matter was before Nzioki wa Makau, J. On 20th Augustthe matter was placed before Rika, J. On 29th Septemberthe matter was fixed for hearing before Nderi Nduma, J. It is evident from that brief procedural history of the application that from the time the matter was first in court on 23rd June to the time it was eventually heard on 29th Septemberfour judges handled the matter.
It is common practice in our country for one judge to certify a matter as urgent and to grant interim relief, exparte, and for the matter to be heard inter partes before another judge. There is therefore no merit in the claim that Onyango, J. As regards the complaint that the application was heard in the absence of the 1st appellant, it is common ground that the 1st appellant did, by a notice dated 14th Augustinform the parties that he would be travelling to Germany for medical reasons, for a period of about 30 days beginning 22nd August It is also not contested that the 2nd appellant informed the court on the day of the hearing on 29th September that the 1st appellant was away in Germany for medication and would be back in two weeks.
He did not however seek an adjournment. In our view he cannot. Article 4 provides: Clause 3 b is in reference to the jurisdiction of the High Court to determine the question whether a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated, infringed or threatened while clause 3 d is in reference to the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear any question respecting the interpretation of the Constitution.