Tensions flared in court Thursday afternoon as Senior Counsel Paul Muite, representing former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, accused an unknown petitioner of attempting to hijack a lawsuit originally filed by Gachagua and his allies before the impeachment process began.
Addressing the High Court three judge bench, Muite expressed visible shock and frustration over what he termed a “hostile and irregular” move by a man named Fredrick Mula, who has filed an application seeking to be substituted as the petitioner in Petition 522 of 2024, one of the four pre-impeachment cases Gachagua has applied to withdraw.
Muite said that it was illegal to allow a stranger (Mula) to take over Gachagua’s case and prosecute it without his client consents.
“Your Lordship will recollect when we appeared before you last time we sought to have petition number 522 of 2024 pre-impeachment petition withdraw allowing us to amend the petition,” Muite reminded the bench, which included Justices Eric Ogolla, Anthony Mrima, and Freda Mugambi.
“However, We received an application in petition number 522of 2024 by a person we do not know. He is seeking to be substituted as the petitioner in place of Gachagua, claiming that the issues raised are of public interest. He wants to step into our shoes and argue our petition. We consider that cannot, and is not, in the interest of our client.”
He added gravely, “There is nothing to stop that substituted petitioner from recording or prosecuting the case in a manner prejudicial to our client.”
To preempt this, Muite told the court they had formaly filed a urgent formal application yesterday seeking to allow the withdrawal of Petition number 522 of 2024 by Gachagua since the court had not yet formally accepted the withdrawal.
“That is a matter that came before my Lord Justice Ogolla this morninng and was directed to be mentioned before this bench this afternoon,” he explained.
Muite concluded by appealing to the bench: “We would seek directions regarding the prosecution of our application for withdrawal of the withdrawal. If Mula wishes to argue substitution, that too can be heard. We are in your Lordship’s hands.”
Mula though his lawyer, who has inserted himself into the legal fray, responded confidently: “ That he had been served with application by Gachagua dated June 16, 2025, and l have filed a replying affidavit to this application. I have not received responses from the other parties regarding his application to be substited as the petitioner in the case” he told Justice Ogolla during a mention on May 19, 2025.
Following the new twist lawyer Paul Nyamodi, representing the National Assembly stated that the court and on May 29,2025 given precise directions on applications.
Nyamodi blasted an application filed by the petitioners seeking to have a new bench constituted as “absurd” and meant to delay the hearing of the cases.
“The Chief Justice is not a judge of the High Court. The petitioners are clearly not interested in proceeding with the case and are merely seeking your disqualification to delay the matter,” he said, urging the bench to remain firm.
Nyamodi was backed by lawyer Peter Wanyama, representing National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula and Deputy Speaker Gladys Boss Shollei, who dismissed the petitioners’ request to forward the recusal application to Chief Justice Martha Koome to appoint a fresh bench to determine the cases.
“You(the bench) have no jurisdiction to review or set aside chief Justice Koome decision to appoint this bench. If the petitioner are aggrieved they should commence a judicial review,” Wanyama stated.
Lawyer Edwin Mukere, appearing for the Senate, emphasized that the orders sought regarding file reassignment were misplaced.
“My understanding of Article 165(4) is that the Chief Justice does not hear the application, she only appoints the bench.”
Meanwhile, lawyer Kibe Muigai, speaking for another faction of the petitioners, admitted the group was aggrieved by CJ Koome’s decision to reconstitute the same bench.
“We have no intention of undermining the Court of Appeal decision, but we urge the CJ to consider this application. We support the challenge and seek time to respond,” he said.
