Written by Lisa Murimi
In a dramatic turn of events, the High Court has been forced to halt proceedings in the contentious petition involving former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua after a landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal.
“Kindly take notice that following the Court of Appeal judgment delivered on 9/5/2025 in Civil Appeal No. E829 of 2024, this matter… stands adjourned pending directions by the Honourable Chief Justice in line with the Court of Appeal decision,” the notice reads.
The decision declared the three-judge bench, appointed by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, as constitutionally invalid, raising serious questions about the delicate balance of power within the judiciary.
For months, the case has been at the center of national debate, with Gachagua fiercely contesting the appointments of Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima, and Freidah Mugambi.
Gachagua had argued that Mwilu, despite her seniority, lacked the constitutional authority to empanel the bench.
His allegations extended beyond legal concerns, suggesting potential conflicts of interest involving the judges’ ties to political figures.
However, in a ruling that echoes far beyond the courtroom, the Court of Appeal made it clear that only Chief Justice Martha Koome holds the power to constitutionally constitute such a bench.
The appellate judges upheld the integrity of the appointed judges but underscored the importance of adhering to constitutional processes, leaving a cloud of uncertainty over the case’s future.
“We have not identified any impropriety in the conduct of the bench. We do not find the judges to be biased or lacking impartiality. Whether to include them in the reconstituted bench is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Chief Justice,” the judges stated.
With the hearing that was scheduled for May 15 now postponed, all eyes are on Chief Justice Koome, who has 14 days to decide how to move forward.
The nation waits anxiously as Koome now holds the key to resolving a matter that has stirred political tensions and questions of judicial fairness, and whether justice can truly be served in this volatile climate.
