The High Court has dismissed a legal bid aimed at overturning the swearing-in of Deputy President Abraham Kithure Kindiki, stating the matter has been overtaken by events. A three-judge bench ruled that revisiting the issue would serve no practical or legal purpose since the swearing-in had already taken place and subsequent political developments had unfolded.
The challenge was brought by lawyer George Sakimpa, who questioned whether earlier court orders that halted the implementation of Rigathi Gachagua’s Senate impeachment were still valid. However, the judges reaffirmed that the matter had already been conclusively dealt with in their earlier ruling delivered on October 31, 2024.
In that decision, the bench comprised of Justices Eric Ogola, Freda Mugambi, and Antony Mrima had determined that the matter regarding Kindiki’s assumption of office was no longer actionable. They pointed to specific paragraphs in the earlier ruling which had already addressed the constitutional implications of the transition.
Crucially, the court noted that Gachagua’s legal team, led by Senior Counsel Paul Muite, had made it clear that their client no longer sought reinstatement. Instead, he would pursue full compensation for the remainder of the five-year term for which he was elected. This shift in legal strategy significantly altered the scope of the remaining petition.
The judges also emphasized that allowing Sakimpa’s application would essentially reopen a matter that had already been resolved, potentially creating a constitutional vacuum an outcome they had already taken into account in their previous deliberations.
Furthermore, the bench granted Gachagua leave to amend his petition. His legal counsel indicated he would focus on challenging the legality of the impeachment and seek financial compensation equivalent to the remainder of the term he was elected to serve, along with additional damages.
The court concluded that with no opposition to the amendment request, there was no barrier to permitting it. By doing so, the legal dispute now shifts focus from office reinstatement to the constitutionality of the impeachment process and the financial entitlements arising from it.
