Members of Kisumu County Assembly have called for the dismissal of a petition filed in the High Court by Speaker Anne Adul challenging her impeachment.
The MCAs said the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case since such matters ought to be settled before an Industrial Court.
Through their lawyer Rodi Rege, the members on Friday raised a list of similar matters that were dismissed and referred to the Industrial court having first been filed in High Court.
Mr Rege told the court presided by Lady Justice Esther Maina that the case had been overtaken by the events since the speaker was impeached on October 21 by a majority vote in the Assembly.
The orders barring the said impeachment, he said, reached the House after the MCAs had kicked out the speaker.
He cited County Government Act (17) that states: “The national law regulating the powers and privileges of Parliament shall, with necessary modifications, apply to a county assembly.”
He argued that the impeachment was also in line with Assembly’s Standing Orders that permitted the MCAs to remove the speaker in absence of orders barring the same.
Mr Rege also submitted that Mr Ken Okong’o, representing the Speaker, withdraw as advocate for the petitioners, claiming that “he was an interested party, who had represented the petitioners and the county assembly before legal tribunals.”
He added that provisions of Devolution limited involvement of the judiciary in matters of county governance adding that the application lacked merit and should be dismissed with costs.
However in response, Mrs Adul argued she had moved to court on grounds of violation of Constitutional rights and that it was the jurisdiction of the High Court to offer redress.
Her lawyer Mr Okong’o said that the respondents had relied on provisions of written law which, he argued, could not override the constitution.
Mr Okong’o said the High Court’s jurisdiction in trying civil matters was unlimited and that they had the right to approach it for redress.
“Only the High Court has a right to make inquiries on claims of violation of rights if those rights have been specified. In this matter, the rights violated have been specified,” he said.
He denied claims that he had never represented the County Assembly or any individual member of the county service board.
“The petitioner has a constitutional right to be represented by an advocate of her choice; a right which can’t be taken away from her even by the court. I uphold and depend on the constitution as a servant capable and authorized to do legal representation.”
Lady Justice Maina extended interim orders to maintain the Speaker in office pending hearing and determination of the case on November 5 2014.