Justice Samuel Muhochi of the Nakuru High Court issued the contested orders in a case filed by Nakuru-based surgeon Magare Gikenyi and Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah.

The orders, which also froze all pending payments by government institutions and counties to various private law firms for work already completed, were described by Wanyama as unconstitutional and a direct threat to the legal profession and advocates’ livelihoods.

“The orders of January 12, 2026 of Justice Samuel Muhochi of Nakuru High Court in Nakuru Petition 001 of 2026 that prohibits all public entities in Kenya from hiring external law firms-are centrally problematic, deeply confusing, and patently unconstitutional,” the lawyers stated.

In a statement issued hours after the ruling, he warned: “Make no mistake about this! The legal profession is under attack. Lawyers are under attack. Law firms are under attack!”

Wanyama argued that the directives contradict Article 227(1) of the Constitution, which allows public entities to procure legal services through fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective means.

He questioned how far-reaching orders could be issued at the ex-parte stage, affecting entities not party to the case.

“The learned judge cannot possibly issue an order that stops the implementation of clear constitutional provisions,” he said.

The lawyer who has previously represented various state institutions and county governments across the country outlined five key reasons why external law firms are essential for public entities.

He noted that public institutions procure external legal services to bridge capacity gaps, handle complex cases, and manage conflicts of interest that in-house lawyers cannot address.

Citing the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) as an example, Wanyama explained that during the 2017 election cycle, IEBC faced over 400 election petitions simultaneously.

“The eight or so in-house lawyers that IEBC employs cannot handle all the petitions. It is humanly impossible to do so,” he said.

Wanyama also highlighted the role of professional indemnity insurance held by law firms, which protects public entities in case of litigation losses, coverage unavailable with internal legal teams.

“In some cases, the insurance runs into millions and billions of shillings. This means a public entity that procures a law firm but incurs losses arising from bad legal representation gets compensated. This benefit is not available to public entities in case of in-house legal representation,” Wanyama said.

He further criticized the timing and scope of the Ex-parte orders, asking how far-reaching directives could be issued without hearing affected parties.

In a direct appeal to Justice Muhochi, he stated: “A judge has the right to make wrong decisions, but has no right to make consciously, conspicuously, and patently wrong decisions.”

He also faulted the freezing of payments for services already rendered under valid contracts, some arising from mandamus orders by other judges.

“Don’t you see conflict in the enforcement of court orders, a situation that public policy in Kenya expressly prohibits?” Wanyama asked.

Wanyama warned that the court order represents serious efforts to undermine the legal profession, citing ongoing attempts to introduce a no-fault-based system that could harm legal practice.

“This court order is not a mistake; it reflects ongoing efforts to undermine the legal profession and diminish the status of advocates,” he stated.

“This situation underscores the necessity for a strategically strong, assertive, and impactful bar.”

He vowed to move to court to challenge the directives and participate in the Nakuru case to have the orders set aside or quashed.

“In the meantime, I will seek to actively participate in the Nakuru case to set aside or quash the impugned orders.” Wanyama said.

The post Lawyer Wanyama Condemns Court Order Blocking Public Entities From Public Sector appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Delivering the ruling in the case Justice Bahati Mwamuye granted the orders sought by the petitioners restraining four individuals from taking oath or performing any functions as chairperson or members of the MCK Board.

The petitioners, Issa Elanyi Chemao and two others,had filed an application dated August 4, 2025, seeking conservatory orders to stop the appointments made through Kenya Gazette Notices No. 10091 and 10092 of July 25, 2025.

In his detailed ruling, Justice Mwamuye found that while the initial ex parte orders issued on August 5, 2025, were improperly obtained due to “material non-disclosure”, the petitioners nonetheless met the legal threshold for the issuance of conservatory orders after a full inter partes hearing.

“Having carefully considered the pleadings, affidavits, and submissions of all parties, I am persuaded that the petitioners have demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success,” Justice Mwamuye stated.

“Accordingly, conservatory orders are hereby issued staying further implementation of the impugned gazette notices.”

The orders effectively restrain Joseph Maina Muiruri, Susan Karago, Timothy Wanyonyi, and Tabitha Mutemi from assuming office, taking oath, or performing any functions as chairperson and members of the Media Council of Kenya until January 22, 2026, unless the orders are extended by the court.

“The conservatory orders issued shall lapse on January 22, 2026, unless otherwise extended,” the judge ruled.

On the issue of costs, the court allowed the Notice of Motion dated August 7, 2025, filed by the 1st and 3rd Respondents — the Cabinet Secretary for ICT and another respondent, who had sought to set aside the ex parte conservatory orders of August 5.

Justice Mwamuye found merit in the application to that extent.

“The ex parte orders are hereby set aside, and costs assessed at KSh150,000 are awarded to the 1st and 3rd Respondents, payable by the Petitioners within 45 days,” the judge directed.

However, Justice Mwamuye made no order as to costs regarding the petitioners’ substantive application dated August 4, noting that the matter raised important constitutional questions that warrant full hearing.

The court further issued a case management timetable, directing all parties to exchange submissions ahead of the scheduled judgement early next year.

“The petitioners shall file and serve any further affidavit and written submissions by October 31, 2025,” the judge directed.

“The respondents and interested parties shall file their submissions by November 21, 2025, and any rebuttal submissions, if necessary, shall be filed by December 10, 2025.”

The matter will then proceed for highlighting of submissions on December 15, 2025, with judgement scheduled for January 22, 2026, both sessions to be conducted virtually at 10:30 a.m.

The case challenges the legality and transparency of the recent appointments to the Media Council of Kenya Board, arguing that the process allegedly contravened constitutional and statutory requirements.

The respondents, represented by State Counsel from the Office of the Attorney General, had opposed the petition, arguing that due process was followed in the appointments and that the applicants had not demonstrated a violation of the Constitution.

The interim orders now halt any action relating to the swearing-in or official commencement of duties by the contested board members, pending final determination of the petition early next year.

The post High Court Halts Appointment of Media Council of Kenya Board Members appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Led by renowned constitutional lawyer Elisha Ongoya, the County Assembly’s legal team responded point-by-point to a preliminary objection raised by Governor Mutai’s defense, which had alleged that the impeachment process was triggered by a non-existent or fraudulent vote.

“Mr. Speaker, the Governor’s team is not attacking the law,  they are attacking technology,” Ongoya told the Senate.

“But even in doing so, their argument fails. The vote was conducted lawfully, using a system adopted under our Standing Orders and ratified by the County Assembly itself.”

Earlier in the day, Governor Mutai’s lawyers, Katwa Kigen and Peter Wanyama, argued that no lawful vote took place, claiming that at least 18 Members of County Assembly (MCAs) did not participate and that the system used lacked transparency.

Ongoya, however, insisted that the voting process was not only valid and procedural, but also supported by a detailed audit trail, logs, and affidavits verifying its integrity.

“They allege that 18 MCAs didn’t vote. We say: look at the logs. The system captured every entry, every timestamp, and every vote cast. The claim that there was no voting is simply not true,” he said.

The lawyer emphasized that the electronic voting system was developed in accordance with Standing Orders 77 and 77A, and included built-in mechanisms to verify and secure each MCA’s vote.

“It’s 2025, digital governance is not a loophole, it’s a standard. Our system was secure, our process was clear, and we followed the law,” Ongoya argued.

He also addressed the claim that MCAs voted twice or impersonated others, calling it a “deliberate distortion.”

“The Governor’s team talks about double voting and impersonation without solid evidence. If these things occurred, why haven’t we seen police reports, system breaches, or official complaints before today?” Ongoya questioned.

To further strengthen their position, the County Assembly’s legal team pointed to annexed documentation, including affidavits from their own IT experts, the Assembly Clerk, and an audit report that they say confirms the process was legitimate.

“The documents speak louder than speculation. We have provided everything, audit logs, affidavits, login histories, and nowhere do they show the kind of fraud the Governor’s team is alleging.”

Ongoya concluded by urging the Senate to reject the preliminary objection and proceed to the full hearing of the charges facing Governor Mutai, which include abuse of office, gross misconduct, and procurement violations.

“This objection is simply a distraction tactic. The people of Kericho deserve a full and fair hearing of the serious charges before this House,” he stated.

Senate speaker is expected to issue a ruling on the preliminary objection at 2:30 pm when the afternoon session resumes

The post Kericho County Assembly Hits Back at Mutai’s Objection, Defends Impeachment Vote as Legal and Transparent appeared first on Insider Bits News.