Court of Appeal halts High Court proceedings on Gachagua's impeachment case

The Court of Appeal has issued conservatory orders stopping the High Court from hearing cases filed by former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua challenging his impeachment.

Justices Daniel Musinga, Mumbi Ngugi, and Francis Tuiyott issued a stay order on more than 40 cases challenging the impeachment, pending the determination of the appeal filed by Gachagua on the High Court's earlier judgment.

"Meanwhile, the High Court proceedings are stayed to await the determination of the consolidated appeals," the Court of Appeal judges ruled.

The appellate court's decision came after the former DP challenged the High Court’s three-judge bench overseeing the cases, arguing that they should not hear and determine petitions challenging his removal from office by the Senate.

This followed the High Court's dismissal of Gachagua's petition against the Deputy Chief Justice (DCJ)’s authority to empanel the bench presiding over his case.

• .

  Keep Reading

• 
  French paedophile surgeon's ex-wife tells court she 'suspected nothing'
• 
  Allow us to make love, prisoners ask govt
• 
  Opposition Flames
• 
  Azimio battles Kenya Kwanza to keep majority side ruling intact

The appellate court ruling came hours before the scheduled mention of the cases before the High Court bench at 2:30 pm. However, the High Court Deputy Registrar, R Onkoba, informed the parties that the case would not proceed due to the Court of Appeal's orders.

"Under the instructions of the Presiding Judge of the Bench, kindly take notice that following the stay of proceedings herein by the Court of Appeal, vide the order dated 25/02/2025 in Civil Appeal No. E829 of 2024, this matter, which was scheduled for mention today (27/02/2025) at 02:30 p.m., will now be mentioned on 15/05/2025 before the Bench for further directions," Onkoba informed the parties.

Gachagua, through senior counsel Paul Muite, is seeking to have a new bench appointed to hear his cases.

The High Court judges had previously ruled that the Chief Justice’s mandate under Article 165(4) of the Constitution concerning the appointment of benches to determine weighty constitutional issues is an administrative function.

They stated that Justice Koome can assign judges when carrying out any constitutional function on behalf of the Chief Justice, ensuring that constitutional responsibilities are performed seamlessly without interruption.

"In our view, and in line with the doctrine of continuity in governance, the drafters of our Constitution were deliberate in ensuring that the administration of duties and application of constitutional provisions remain uninterrupted," the judges concluded.