The petition challenging the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua will be mentioned in January 2025, the High Court in Nairobi directed on Thursday.
The petitioners had requested the court to await the Court of Appeal's decision in a case where the former DP is challenging a decision that ruled that Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu didn't violate the Constitution of Kenya 2010 when she appointed a three-judge bench to hear Gachagua''s ouster case.
"As such, the same is hereby allowed to amend their petition and serve within 30 days," the court directed after one of the petitions in the matter was withdrawn.
The mention of the case has been set for January 23, 2025.
On Wednesday, the former Deputy President withdrew an appeal he had lodged at the Court of Appeal seeking to stay High Court proceedings in his impeachment case.
Gachagua had particularly sought orders to stop the High Court from lifting conservatory orders that had stopped his replacement and swearing in of Kindiki as a new DP.
The High Court last week vacated the conservatory, allowing Kindiki to assume office as Deputy President.
When the case came up for mention on Wednesday, Gachagua’s lawyer Paul Muite told Court of Appeal judges Patrick Kiage, Aggrey Muchelule, and George Odunga that his client wished to have the application withdrawn.
Gachagua sought orders to declare the bench of Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima, and Freda Mugambi unconstitutional, arguing that it was empaneled by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu and not Chief Justice Martha Koome as ought to be.
“The impugned bench proceeded to vacate the conservatory orders in a ruling which allowed one Prof Kithure Kindiki to be sworn in as Deputy President. Our stay application is thus overtaken by events, very regrettably,” Muite said.
Muite, however said the core issue of whether the Deputy CJ can empanel a bench of the High Court remains very much alive before the court.
“It is a matter of great public importance and urgency and deserves an expedited resolution. The substantive appeal is on the single issue of whether powers granted to the CJ is judicial or administrative,” he said.
