High Court rejects bid to overturn Kindiki’s swearing-in
By Zipporah Ngwatu, August 1, 2025A Nairobi High Court has rejected a bid to overturn the swearing-in of Deputy President Abraham Kithure Kindiki, citing that the matter has already been overtaken by events.
This came after lawyer George Sakimpa sought clarification from a three-judge bench on whether previous court orders issued by Justices Chacha Mwita and Richard Mwongo—stopping the implementation of Gachagua’s Senate impeachment—were still in force.
On October 31, 2024, the same bench—consisting of Presiding Judge Eric Ogola, Lady Justice Freda Mugambi, and Justice Antony Mrima—which had been empanelled by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, ruled that the petition challenging DP Kindiki’s legality in office had been overtaken by events.
“On the publication by way of motion dated May 28, 2025, raised by Mr. Sakimpa, we hold that the same has been overtaken by events, citing paragraphs 139 and 140 of this bench’s ruling rendered on October 31, 2024,” the bench ruled.
Notably, Justices Ogola, Mugambi, and Mrima observed that Gachagua, through his legal team led by Senior Counsel Paul Muite, had informed the court that he intended to seek full-term payment instead of reinstatement as Deputy President.
“Senior Counsel Paul Muite is on record, on May 29, 2025, having expressed the position of the first petitioner (Gachagua) in abandoning his prayer for reinstatement to the office of Deputy President,” the bench ruled.
In the ruling delivered on Thursday, July 31, 2025, the bench stated that allowing lawyer Sakimpa’s application would amount to creating a constitutional vacuum—a scenario they had already considered in the ruling of October 31, 2024.
“Having already expressed ourselves on this, it would be imprudent to extend judicial time and resources on the same issue. As such, the notice of motion is hereby dispensed with,” the three-judge bench ruled.
On May 29, 2025, lawyer Muite told the court that the former Deputy President is still challenging the legality of his impeachment, though he no longer seeks reinstatement.
“The petitioner wishes to vigorously challenge the legality and constitutionality of his impeachment and will be seeking to persuade the court to accordingly set aside the impeachment,” Muite told the court.
He also urged the court to grant him leave to amend the petition to seek compensation for the five years he was meant to serve in office.
“Further, he is seeking to persuade the court to grant him the emoluments he would have earned for the entire five-year term to which he had been elected by the Kenyan people—plus, of course, the appropriate damages,” Muite added.
The bench granted the request for leave to amend, stating that there was no objection to the application.
“On the issue arising in the application for amendment, we note that there is no objection to the stated petition, and we hereby grant the petitioner permission to amend it,” the three-judge bench ruled.