Why Ruto's bloated team of advisers has lost bid to resume office for six months

The High Court has dealt a major blow to 21 former President William Ruto's advisers, including David Ndii and Harriet Chigai, after dismissing their attempt to return to office for six months to complete handovers.

In a ruling delivered on Tuesday at Milimani High Court, Justice Bahati Mwamuye dismissed the urgent application filed by Ndii and 20 other advisors seeking a temporary stay of the court’s January 22, 2026 judgment that declared their appointments unconstitutional and blocked their payment.

Justice Mwamuye rejected the advisers’ application, ruling that their request was unfounded and legally baseless.

He emphasised that the High Court’s earlier judgment declaring their appointments unconstitutional cannot be challenged in the same court.

"The application by the advisors violates the principle of res judicata. The matter has already been finally decided, and parties cannot seek to relitigate issues that have been conclusively determined," Justice Mwamuye said.

"A party cannot, under the guise of an application, invite this Court to reopen, reconsider, or sit in judgment over its own final decision," he added, noting that respecting final rulings is essential to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

Justice Mwamuye further stated that the advisors had failed to present any new grounds that would justify revisiting the matter.

"The present applicants have not demonstrated a new possibility of injustice that would fit into the injustice exception to the doctrine of res judicata pronounced by the court," he said.

He ruled that the advisors' fresh bid was an attempt to relitigate a matter already conclusively determined by the court, emphasising that the application violated the principle of res judicata.

The advisors, through their lawyers Mansur Issa and Mahat Somane, had urged the judge to temporarily suspend his ruling for 180 days, arguing that the period would allow them to complete handovers, prevent government operations from being crippled, and facilitate the filing of an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Lawyer Mansur insisted that the advisors should be allowed to continue their work while any appeal is considered.

He told the court that the sudden removal of the advisers would create operational gaps in critical areas such as national security, economic policy, and intergovernmental coordination.

"Absent a temporary stay, the intended appeal risks being rendered meaningless, and the abrupt removal of the advisors will disrupt critical government functions," Mansur said.

However, the Katiba Institute, through lawyer Joshua Nyawa, opposed the application, arguing that the advisers had no legal basis to seek a stay.

"Courts deliver final judgments for a reason. Attempts to ignore or bypass them undermine the Constitution and public trust in governance," Nyawa told the court. He added that public offices belong to Kenyans, not individuals, and must be respected.

The lobby group also argued that the advisors were attempting to resurrect arguments already rejected immediately after the January 22, 2026 judgment.

"Having heard and considered the respective arguments by the parties in this regard, I am satisfied and I do hereby find and hold that the 1st to 3rd and 5th to 21st Interested Parties’ application dated January 27, 2026 is indeed res judicata," Justice Mwamuye ruled.

He explained that identical prayers had been made by the Attorney General immediately after judgment delivery on January 22.

Justice Mwamuye warned that repetitive applications contribute significantly to court backlogs, urging litigants to pursue proper legal remedies.

"Cyclic litigation is a significant contributor to the phenomenon of backlog that bedevils our court processes," he stated.

"Res judicata is an important aspect of our legal order. It preserves scarce judicial time, promotes certainty and uniformity, and prevents a matter from being caught up in an unending cycle of litigation," he added.

The judge advised the advisors to file an appeal before the Court of Appeal if they are aggrieved by the judgment nullifying their appointments.

"The answer to an unsatisfactory answer is not to ask the same question to another party. It is to either seek review based on the permissible grounds for the same or to appeal to the venerable court that sits above," Justice Mwamuye said.

Lawyer Mansur, however, urged the court to fast-track the typed proceedings and the January 22, 2026 judgment, stating that the advisers intend to appeal to the Court of Appeal.