In constitutional law and theory, it is permissible to ask judges to decline jurisdiction because 1. The dispute is purely political and, therefore, not justiciable. 2. The dispute is highly polycentric. A judicial remedy cannot be satisfactorily fashioned. But, some judges have recognized the limitations and fashioned structural interdict remedies 3. By taking up the dispute, judges would be taking over the work of elected representatives [ the anti-countermajoritarian narrative] 4. In applying the rational basis test, the decision is better addressed by other branches of government. 5. Proportionally, the remedies issued would amount to judicial overeach. 6. Issuing a judicial remedy would interfere with a legitimate executive or parliamentary action. 7. Exercising judicial discretion on the dispute will result in judge-made law. Actually, where the law does not permit the exercise of discretion- judges should recognize the limitation and avoid legislating from the bench. 8. When the doctrine of separation of powers limits the exercise of discretion. 9. Application of the doctrine of judicial restrain, especially when the law provides the resolution of disputes through other fora. Judges who don't recognize these limitations are often referred to as activist judges." They are usually accused of judicial activism, judicialisation of politics or attempting to establish a juristocracy. In the US, practitioners and scholars have often questioned the Supreme Court's decision to take over purely political matters. In the UK, the House of Lords and now Supreme Court rarely adjudicates political disputes. In Kenya, it is plausible for a judge to declare a presidential appointment to the Cabinet as unconstitutional or to order politicians to sign a coalition pact ! PMO.

In constitutional law and theory, it is permissible to ask judges to decline jurisdiction because 1. The dispute is purely political and, therefore, not justiciable. 2. The dispute is highly polycentric. A judicial remedy can not be satisfactorily fashioned. But, some judges have recognized the limitations and fashioned structural interdict remedies 3. By taking up the dispute, judges would be taking over the work of elected representatives [ the anti-countermajoritarian narrative] 4. In applying the rational basis test, the decision is better addressed by other branches of government. 5. Proportionally, the remedies issued would amount to judicial overeach. 6. Issuing a judicial remedy would interfere with a legitimate executive or parliamentary action. 7. Exercising judicial discretion on the dispute will result in judge-made law. Actually, where the law does not permit the exercise of discretion- judges should recognize the limitation and avoid legislating from the bench. 8. When the doctrine of separation of powers limits the exercise of discretion. 9. Application of the doctrine of judicial restrain, especially when the law provides the resolution of disputes through other fora. Judges who don't recognize these limitations are often referred to as activist judges." They are usually accused of judicial activism, judicialisation of politics or attempting to establish a juristocracy. In the US, practitioners and scholars have often questioned the Supreme Court's decision to take over purely political matters. In the UK, the House of Lords and now Supreme Court rarely adjudicates political disputes. In Kenya, it is plausible for a judge to declare a presidential appointment to the Cabinet as unconstitutional or to order politicians to sign a coalition pact ! PMO.

Something is happening in the judiciary - a major re-awakening. The attitude is changing, and matters are being listed for hearing and judgments are being delivered . It is like judicial officers are listening to a new gospel. They are afraid of Nelson Havi getting information about their courts. A whole Mr. Ndemo- has been designated the judiciary spokesman to specifically respond to queries from Havi. Nowadays, court officials respond to emails ! I think Havi has reformed the 'attitude' of the judiciary. All of a sudden, magistrates are polite. Let us give credit to Havj. He has done well ! Kweli Rongo ?

The Court of Appeal has delivered 3 judgments and 2 rulings for my matters- in 2025. I also have 4 appeals listed for hearing in February, including a major appeal where the President of the Court of Appeal is expected to select 'tough and experienced judges' to sit on the bench. In this latter Appeal, I expect to make the toughest submissions of my legal career. It is an appeal where judges awarded themselves a Kshs. 10 m car grant that is payable every 4 years. My task is to tell judges [ who expect to be paid the money] that the High Court judgment is wrong !

RT @BBCWorld: 'Studio sex' and 'hitman threats': Insiders speak out about Diddy's 90s music empire

Judges and magistrates at all levels should be asked to issue their rulings within 30 days and judgments within 60 days. No exceptions. This will go a long in improving efficiency in the administration of justice. Delays often fuel allegations of corruption and influence peddling in decision making. A good ruling or judgment should be cogent, crisp, and reasonable in the number of pages.

@Kenyajudiciary @NelsonHavi Thanks, King @NelsonHavi .I knew I would get a response by tagging you !

Arsenal Versu Man City is a fantastic game of chase; it is pure chess.

But why ?

RT @Bonyton_: Tier 1 Law Firms are competing to show us their pupils

Putin wants to annex Ukraine. This got Trump dreaming of annexing Canada. This will fortify China's claim for Taiwan and Kagame's quest to annex Eastern Congo. I need to read Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace once again !

We need to strip legal reasoning associated with judging of it's impurities such as unfettered discretion, legal sophistry, and specious reasoning. A judge should be capable only of pure, wise, and sensible reasoning . The judgment must flow; in judicial writing, one should trace the evolution of legal thought from the cradle of juristic inception to the towering magnificent of judicial longhand. At the appellate level, judging should not be a matter of course; judges should be compelled to write separate opinion so that we can assess the quality of the writing, trace and characterise the judge's judicial philosophy and reasoning. To be appointed to the appellate courts, a judge must demonstrate distinctive, qualitative, and pure reasoning. Judicial polyculture in judging, if properly nurtured, will redeem the institutional profile and prestige of our appellate courts. After all, appellate courts are courts of law; not courts of justice! PMO

Judiciary's response to King @NelsonHavi . When I grow up- I want to study how one determined advocate can shake up a whole branch of government

DRC-Rwanda Civil War will be bad for regional peace. Rwanda and DRC should sit down and agree on the socio-economic and political rights of residents of Rwanda that are in Eastern Congo and vice versa.