By Andrew Kariuki
The High Court has dismissed a renewed attempt by 21 presidential advisors and several State agencies to temporarily stop the implementation of a judgment that declared their appointments unconstitutional.
In a ruling delivered on February 3, 2026, Justice Bahati Mwamuye held that the applications seeking a temporary stay raised no new issues and merely repeated arguments that had already been considered and rejected by the court.
Justice Mwamuye ruled that the applications were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, noting that the respondents, including the Attorney General and the Public Service Commission, were seeking the same relief using the same grounds that had been addressed in the court’s January 22, 2026 decision.
“The issues now being raised have already been conclusively dealt with by this court,” the judge found, adding that there was no legal basis to revisit or suspend the earlier judgment.
The court rejected arguments that implementing the ruling would disrupt government operations or make an orderly handover impossible, stating that those concerns had been fully considered in the original judgment and did not amount to a substantial risk that would justify a stay.
Justice Mwamuye further observed that the fresh applications failed to demonstrate any likelihood of injustice or exceptional circumstances that would warrant interfering with the court’s earlier orders.
In the January 22 ruling, the High Court declared the creation of offices and appointment of 21 presidential advisors unconstitutional, null and void.
The court found that the positions were established without public participation, competitive recruitment or the involvement of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission, as required by the Constitution.
The affected appointments included several high-profile figures, among them David Ndii, Monica Juma and Makau Mutua.
The court also issued a permanent injunction barring the payment of salaries, allowances or other benefits to the advisors.
In dismissing the latest applications, the court reaffirmed that the executive must comply with constitutional standards when creating public offices and making appointments.
The respondents have indicated that they intend to challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal, but for now, the High Court’s ruling remains in force.
