Former President William Ruto’s advisers suffered a major setback after the High Court rejected their second attempt to stay in office for six months to allow handovers.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye on Wednesday dismissed the January 27 application by 21 Presidential Advisors, ruling that their request was illegal and lacked constitutional backing.
“The court finds the application misconceived and outside the law. It cannot be entertained,” Justice Mwamuye said, emphasizing that public offices must operate within the limits of the Constitution.
The advisors had sought to challenge their sacking from the Presidency, arguing that their removal was unlawful.
However, the court found that their positions were not constitutionally or statutorily guaranteed, making their claim unsustainable.
The advisers including David Ndii, Monica Juma, Jaoko Oburu, and Harriet Chigai, argued that a stay would allow them to comply with the court’s orders, facilitate proper handover, and support their planned appeal.
The Attorney General and the Public Service Commission backed them, but the Katiba Institute opposed the application, citing res judicata.
Justice Mwamuye rejected their claims of “new arguments”:
“The same arguments canvassing appeal, structural interdict, prejudice, support for the President, handover, irreparable harm and prejudice, and the others are a rehash of what was covered extensively on 22/01/2026,” he ruled.
He warned against repeated applications to bypass unfavorable rulings.
“While the Party making an Application may change, if the substance of what is being sought and the grounds or arguments in the support of the same are identical, then the doctrine of res judicata bars that second attempt.”
The ruling emphasized finality in court proceedings:”Res Judicata is an important aspect of our legal order. It preserves scarce judicial time, promotes certainty and uniformity, and prevents a matter being caught up in an unending cycle of litigation.”
In a related ruling, the court dismissed contempt charges against Ndii and Chigai over social media posts after the January 22 judgment.
Justice Mwamuye said Ndii’s posts were “a mixture of his expression of dissatisfaction with the outcome… and a comment that, while somewhat distasteful, was an expression of his personal experience with respect to an incident that occurred in the year 2017.”
Chigai’s actions, the court found, had “two equally persuasive interpretations” and did not show she was continuing in a quashed role.
“Social media comments can have real-life negative consequences… Such comments must strike the balance between our constitutionally protected freedom to express our views… and the need to protect and promote the proper administration of justice,” the judge cautioned.
The dispute stems from a case filed by the Katiba Institute challenging the constitutionality of the Presidential Advisor offices.
The January 22 judgment quashed the positions, with advisers’ immediate oral stay applications rejected.
The new written application has now also been dismissed, leaving the judgment fully in force.
Advisers retain the right to appeal the substantive judgment to the Court of Appeal.
