The High Court has postponed the hearing of more than 40 impeachment-related cases filed by former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua and others to December 16, 2025, pending the outcome of two appeals lodged in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima, and Freda Mugambi agreed to defer the hearings after Gachagua and his co-petitioners informed the court that both the National Assembly and Kirinyaga Woman Representative Njeri Maina had filed separate appeals touching on the constitutionality of the bench handling the matters.
“The court has considered all submissions made by counsel in light of the pending matters before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court,” the bench ruled.
“In deference to the hierarchy of courts and for orderly proceedings, we hereby vacate the earlier hearing dates of October 23 and 24, 2025.”
The judges directed that parties who have not yet filed their responses to the amended petitions must do so within seven days without the option of extension, after which Gachagua and his co-petitioners will have 14 days to file their written submissions.
“We will mention the matter again on December 16, 2025, at 2:30 pm to confirm compliance and to assess the status of the pending appeals,” Justice Mugambi said while delivering the brief ruling.
The adjournment came just days after the National Assembly lodged an appeal at the Supreme Court challenging a decision by the Court of Appeal which stripped Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu of powers to empanel a three-judge bench to hear constitutional and impeachment-related cases.
In its petition, the Assembly argues that the appellate court “erred in law and misinterpreted the Constitution” by holding that the DCJ lacks jurisdiction to constitute a bench of more than one judge in matters arising under Article 165(4) of the Constitution.
“The learned judges of the Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in holding that the Deputy Chief Justice lacks jurisdiction to constitute a bench of more than one judge in matters arising under Article 165(4) of the Constitution,” reads part of the appeal filed by the Assembly’s legal department.
MPs maintain that the Court of Appeal’s finding undermines the constitutional independence of the Judiciary and the administrative functions of the Office of the Deputy Chief Justice, which is mandated to assist the Chief Justice in performing judicial and administrative duties.
They argue that the DCJ was acting lawfully and within delegated authority from the Chief Justice, who was at the time engaged in official duties abroad.
“The Court failed to consider the principle of continuity in judicial administration and the necessity for delegation of functions within the Office of the Chief Justice,” the appeal further states.
The National Assembly now wants the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling and affirm that the DCJ retains administrative powers to empanel judges in the absence or delegation of the Chief Justice.
In a separate move, Kirinyaga Woman Representative Njeri Maina and MCA David Mathenge also filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal, challenging the High Court’s July 30 decision declining to clarify the status of earlier court orders that barred the Senate from impeaching Gachagua.
Through their lawyers Andrew Muge and George Sakimpa, the two argue that the High Court failed to pronounce itself on whether two orders issued in 2024 by Justices Chacha Mwita (Milimani) and Richard Mwongo (Kerugoya), which had stayed Gachagua’s impeachment, remain in force.
“The orders were vacated by a bench that the Court of Appeal has since declared unlawful. We seek clarity on whether those orders still stand,” said lawyer Muge.
The petitioners told the court that the May 9, 2025 Court of Appeal ruling declared that the initial three-judge bench that vacated the injunction orders had been illegally constituted by DCJ Mwilu.
They argued that since the bench was unlawfully formed, its decision to vacate the orders was equally invalid.
“The High Court’s refusal to clarify the status of the orders effectively allows the Senate decision to proceed, despite pending appeals and without proper constitutional procedure,” Sakimpa submitted.
Representing the former Deputy President and 40 other petitioners, lawyers John Jomo and Ochiel Dudley supported the request to defer the hearings, noting that both appeals raise weighty constitutional questions that may determine the fate of the entire proceedings.
“The Supreme Court is expected to issue directions on October 9, 2025, regarding the appeal lodged by the National Assembly,” Jomo told the court.
“Likewise, the Court of Appeal will be giving its directions on the Kirinyaga appeal around the same time.”
Jomo added that proceeding with the hearings while the superior courts were seized of the matter would risk “rendering the appellate process nugatory.”
However, lawyers representing some of the respondents, including the Attorney General and the Senate, opposed the postponement, arguing that no stay orders had been issued by either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal.
“The National Assembly has not obtained any stay orders to halt these proceedings. The petitioners are merely seeking to delay the hearing,” one of the state counsels argued.
Despite the opposition, the bench allowed the adjournment “in the interest of judicial orderliness.”
The legal dispute stems from Gachagua’s impeachment by the Senate in 2024, which was later challenged before the High Court.
The matter has since been marred by procedural wrangles over the validity of the bench that was constituted by DCJ Mwilu to handle the constitutional issues.
In May 2025, the Court of Appeal ruled that Mwilu had no authority to appoint a multi-judge bench under Article 165(4), declaring the earlier empanelment “illegal and unlawful.”
The ruling effectively nullified decisions made by the bench she had formed, including orders staying or vacating Gachagua’s impeachment.
The National Assembly and Gachagua’s legal team now want the Supreme Court to restore the DCJ’s authority, arguing that her administrative actions were consistent with constitutional principles of judicial continuity and delegation.
The High Court has scheduled the mention for December 16, 2025, to confirm compliance with directions and review developments from the appellate courts.
“Some respondents have complied while others have not. There is urgent need for this Court to manage this case efficiently,” Justice Mugambi noted.
The bench directed that all submissions be filed within the set timelines, warning that there would be no further extensions.
The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are both expected to issue key directions in the coming weeks that may determine whether Gachagua’s impeachment proceedings will resume or remain frozen into the new year.
