The Senate has asked the High Court to dismiss a petition seeking to halt the consideration of a motion that could lead to a review of former President Uhuru Kenyatta’s retirement benefits, arguing that the matter is premature and based on a process that has not yet begun.
In court documents filed on June 8, 2026, the Senate contends that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for the grant of conservatory orders, insisting that no constitutional violation has occurred and no prejudice has been shown.
According to the Senate, the motion in question, reportedly sponsored by Kiprotich Cherargei, has not been tabled before the House and therefore remains subject to procedural scrutiny before any debate can take place.
“The petitioner has not established a prima facie case or demonstrated any harm that would arise if the orders sought are not granted,” the Senate states in its response.
The dispute stems from a proposed motion seeking the review, audit and possible variation of benefits enjoyed by the former Head of State under the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act.
However, the Senate maintains that no decision has been made regarding the motion and that any fears raised by the petitioners are speculative.
The House argues that the Constitution grants Parliament independence in the conduct of its affairs, including the freedom of debate and the authority to regulate its internal proceedings through Standing Orders.
“The Speaker is required to determine the admissibility of motions before they are introduced for debate. Any intervention by the court at this stage would amount to interference with parliamentary processes,” the Senate argues.
The Senate has further invoked the legal doctrine of ripeness, contending that courts should not adjudicate disputes that have not crystallised into actual controversies.
It also argues that granting the orders sought would violate the principle of separation of powers by preventing Parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions.
“The court should exercise restraint and respect the independence of Parliament as a co-equal arm of government,” the Senate submits.
The House adds that if Parliament were eventually to pass a resolution affecting a retired President’s benefits, the High Court would still have jurisdiction to assess the constitutionality of that decision.
The petition was filed by the lobby group Sheria Mtaani together with advocate Shadrack Wambui, who moved to court under a certificate of urgency seeking to stop Parliament from considering the proposed motion.
The petitioners argue that the intended parliamentary process is unconstitutional and poses a threat to rights protected under the Constitution, necessitating judicial intervention before the Senate debates the matter.
Comments
Sign in with Google to comment, reply, and like comments.
Continue with Google