Why Embakasi ranching shareholders are seeking Judge Rutto's removal

Embakasi Ranching shareholders have petitioned Chief Justice Martha Koome, seeking to remove and investigate High Court Judge Rhoda Rutto over mishandling a long-running company dispute.

The shareholders want Chief Justice Martha Koome to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Lady Justice Rhoda Rutto over her handling of Milimani High Court Commercial Case No. E096 of 2019, which they claim has been used to facilitate an illegal takeover of their company and property.

The shareholders, in their petition dated September 15, demanded that Justice Rutto be removed from the case and investigated for what they described as taking orders from powerful outsiders and helping facilitate the takeover of the company.

“We demand that Lady Justice Rhoda Rutto be removed from this fake case immediately and investigated for taking orders from powerful outsiders and helping thieves carry out this illegal takeover of our company and property,” the shareholders said.

They alleged that the case had been filed and maintained by people who were not legitimate directors of Embakasi Ranching Company, claiming that the proceedings relied on forged and fraudulent documents.

The shareholders further alleged that one of the applicants had been impersonating the company’s former chairman, Godfrey Muhuri Muchiri, who they said died on May 31, 2006.

They claimed that the issue had been brought to Justice Rutto’s attention during proceedings but alleged that the court failed to act on it.

The petitioners also challenged the authority of the people who instituted the case, arguing that official company records showed a different set of directors.

They accused the judge of ignoring arguments challenging the legitimacy of the proceedings and further questioned the delay between the reading of the conclusion of her ruling on August 6, 2026, and the uploading of the full ruling six days later.

The shareholders alleged that they had reason to believe the judge initially ruled in their favour but later changed the written decision after allegedly receiving instructions from government officials.

They also raised concerns over a previous court order which they claimed bore the signature of lawyer Howard Njoroge Mburu, whom they alleged had died years before the signature was used.

On the basis of these allegations, the shareholders asked the Chief Justice to remove Justice Rutto from the matter, transfer the file to an independent bench and terminate the case.

They also asked the Chief Justice to intervene in what they described as a dispute involving former company officials, including directing police to remove some individuals from the company’s offices and arrest and prosecute others.

However, the Office of the Chief Justice rejected the shareholders’ requests, saying the petition did not disclose evidence demonstrating misconduct by Justice Rutto.

In a response dated September 18, 2026, Deputy Registrar Faith Muguongo said the Chief Justice had carefully reviewed the petition and addressed the grievances raised by the shareholders.

“The Hon Chief Justice notes that your petition does not disclose any evidence demonstrating misconduct on the part of the judge,” Muguongo said in the response.

She advised the shareholders that where they were aggrieved by a ruling or order, the proper remedy was to seek a review or lodge an appeal before the appropriate court.

On their demand for the case to be removed from Justice Rutto and transferred to another bench, the CJ’s office said the Chief Justice had no constitutional, statutory or administrative power to terminate or transfer a matter pending before a judge.

“Termination of a case and joinder of parties are independent judicial functions performed by the court and not administrative functions,” the response states.

The office also declined the request to direct police action, saying the Chief Justice had no constitutional or statutory power to instruct police or investigative agencies to perform their mandates.

“The National Police Service is an independent constitutional agency that can be approached directly by any citizen or party seeking their services,” the response stated.

The petitioners had also asked the Law Society of Kenya to intervene in the dispute as amicus curiae and demanded that shareholders be allowed to participate in the case.

They further called for the termination of HC.COMM/E096/2019, alleging that it had been used to block company meetings and facilitate what they described as an unlawful takeover of company land and property.

The petition was copied to the Secretary of the Judicial Service Commission, the Deputy Registrar of the High Court Commercial and Tax Division and the President of the Law Society of Kenya.