The Supreme Court of Kenya has dismissed two consolidated applications arising from a protracted legal dispute linked to the 2024 impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua.
In a ruling delivered on January 30, 2026, the court declined to grant requests filed separately by the National Assembly and Mr Gachagua, effectively allowing the substantive appeal and cross-appeal to proceed to full hearing.
Background to the Gachagua Dispute
The case traces its roots to October 2024, following the impeachment of Gachagua by the National Assembly.
In the aftermath, six constitutional petitions were filed across various High Court stations, challenging the legality and conduct of the impeachment proceedings.
Given the weighty constitutional questions raised, the matters were referred to the Chief Justice for the constitution of special benches under Article 165(4) of the Constitution.
On October 14, 2024, Chief Justice Martha Koome empanelled a three-judge bench comprising Justices Anthony Mrima, John Ogola, and Freda Mugambi to hear the first cluster of petitions, including applications seeking to halt Senate impeachment proceedings.
As events progressed, a second cluster of petitions emerged, including fresh applications by Mr Gachagua seeking to block the Senate’s confirmation of his impeachment and the swearing-in of Prof. Kithure Kindiki as Deputy President.
During the Chief Justice’s absence, the Deputy Chief Justice empanelled the same three-judge bench to hear some of these new cases, an action that triggered the present legal controversy.
High Court and Court of Appeal Decisions
Mr Gachagua challenged the Deputy Chief Justice’s authority to empanel the bench and separately sought the recusal of all three judges, citing alleged bias and conflict of interest.
In rulings delivered on October 23 and 25, 2024, the High Court dismissed both challenges, holding that bench empanelment is an administrative function delegable by the Chief Justice and that no factual or legal basis existed to justify recusal.
However, the Court of Appeal partly overturned that position, ruling that the power to empanel High Court benches is vested exclusively in the Chief Justice and may only be exercised by the Deputy Chief Justice in clearly defined and publicly communicated exceptional circumstances. The appellate court nonetheless upheld the High Court’s decision dismissing the recusal applications.
Applications Before the Supreme Court
The Court of Appeal’s finding on empanelment prompted the National Assembly to move to the Supreme Court, challenging the ruling. Mr Gachagua cross-appealed, dissatisfied with parts of the appellate judgment.
Before the hearing of the substantive appeal, two applications were filed, including an omnibus application by Gachagua seeking to stay High Court proceedings, strike out the National Assembly’s appeal, and expunge certain documents from the record and a separate application by the National Assembly seeking to strike out Mr Gachagua’s notice of cross-appeal.
Supreme Court’s Determination
The Supreme Court dismissed both applications in their entirety.
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to stay proceedings before the High Court, noting that such powers extend only to matters pending before the Court of Appeal.
It further ruled that the National Assembly’s appeal raised substantive issues deserving determination on merit and could not be summarily dismissed.
The judges also found that the contested documents were central to the dispute and had been relied upon by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
Similarly, the court rejected the National Assembly’s application, finding that Mr Gachagua’s cross-appeal did not meet the legal threshold for summary dismissal.
What Happens Next?
As a result, both the appeal by the National Assembly and the cross-appeal by Mr Gachagua will proceed to a full hearing before the Supreme Court.
Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that the current proceedings relate strictly to the question of judicial empanelment and not the substantive impeachment of Mr Gachagua, which remains pending before the High Court.
About the Author
