Gachagua impeachment: Court declines application to delay hearing of petitions

Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has lost an application to delay the hearing of the consolidated petitions he filed to overturn his impeachment.

He sought to await the court of appeal's ruling on his appeal to stop the three-judge bench he is suspicious of.

However, the court gave instructions to be complied with, in a period exceeding the 21 days sought by Gachagua, meaning although the prayers are declined, the matters shall be on hold for a longer period than what the ex-DP sought.

The orders include amendments of some of the petitions and exchange of the same between parties within 28 days during which the hearing will be on hold and which period exceeds the 21 days sought by Gachagua. The matter will resume on February 28.

Gachagua had made an application to stay the proceedings for 21 days to allow the court of appeal to determine his appeal against the bench – consisting of lady justices Freidah Mugambi, Eric Ogola (presiding) and Anthony Mrima. He has said he is not confident that the bench will be fair to him.

The former DP had argued that the pending determination by the court of appeal would have far-reaching implications on the proceedings before the three-judge bench and it was appropriate for the bench to await the appellate court's decision.

But the bench "declined" the prayers and at the same time granted the same albeit tactically.

Justice Ogola said there are no orders from the court of appeal stopping his bench from further proceeding with determining the issues before it and if such orders come at a later date, his bench will do as shall be directed.

"If at any point in the proceedings, we are served with an order for stay, we will at that point down our tools. Automatically grounding tools (after an appeal is filed) would otherwise mean that where an appeal is filed, in any matter, shall translate to stay of proceedings in the lower courts which is not the position of the law," stated Ogola.

More time

Although Justice Ogola said the application by Gachagua's lawyers led by Kibe Mungai and Harrison Kinyanjui is disallowed, the terms given amount to cleverly giving more time than the ex-DP had sought.

For instance, Ogola said since some of the interested parties and petitioners were making their first appearance in court on Thursday after the files were consolidated, it is important that they be given time to amend their petitions to align with developments that have so far happened.

"Given that there are petitions being mentioned before this court for the first time, and the petitioners therein did not have the privilege from our previous directions on amendments, we find it necessary to allow this prayer," stated Ogola.

"In any case, such amendments will be in the interest of justice and no prejudice will be suffered by the respondents who will have not particularly opposed the leave to amend as they will have an opportunity to respond. For this reason, the application for leave to amend is hereby allowed."

He said the new entrants will be given 14 days to make amendments to their applications necessitated by the fact that some of the issues they raised and orders sought have been overtaken by events.

Other Topics To Read

• National
• Rigathi Gachagua impeachment
• Gachagua impeachment
• DP Gachagua impeachment
• Gachagua impeachment: Court declines application to delay hearing of petitions
• Headlines

For example, some of the prayers included barring Deputy President Prof. Kithure Kindiki from being sworn into office to replace Gachagua which has already happened.

Justice Ogola directed the amended applications to be served to all parties including the National Assembly, the Senate, the Speakers' of the two houses, the office of Attorney General and Prof. Kindiki who are among those sued.

The other parties (respondents) including Prof. Kindiki and others sued in the consolidated petitions will have 14 days to respond to the amended petitions which will have slightly different issues. The respondents had opposed Gachagua's application stating that the ex-DP cannot seek to delay a matter he filed under a certificate of urgency.

They argued that those were matters of great public interest which should be determined with urgency.