The High Court has declined to urgently hear Trans Nzoia Governor George Natembeya’s application seeking the restoration of his security detail, directing him to file a fresh case to challenge its alleged withdrawal this month.
Justice Rosylene Aburili ruled that the governor could not introduce the latest dispute into a petition that is already awaiting judgment over a separate incident involving the withdrawal of his security in November 2025.
The judge said the circumstances surrounding the two incidents were different and should be addressed through separate court proceedings.
“The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the alleged withdrawal of his security detail on October 14, 2026 under circumstances which are totally different from circumstances that gave rise to the filing of the petition,” Justice Aburili ruled on October 19.
The decision followed an application dated October 16, 2026, filed under a certificate of urgency against the Inspector General of Police and the Attorney General.
In the application, Mr Natembeya sought orders for the restoration of his security as of October 13, 2026, and asked the court to find the respondents in contempt of court.
However, Justice Aburili declined to certify the application as urgent, noting that the original petition was already at an advanced stage, with judgment scheduled for December 3, 2026.
The judge said she was in the process of writing the judgment and had previously informed the parties that they would be notified if it was ready before the scheduled date.
She warned that allowing the new allegations to be introduced into the existing petition would complicate the determination of a case whose pleadings and submissions had already been completed.
“To hold otherwise would twist the petition with totally new facts thereby making it impossible to have it determined, all pleadings having closed,” she said.
The court therefore declined to consider the October 16 application within the existing petition, leaving the governor free to initiate separate proceedings over the latest alleged withdrawal of his security.
The dispute over Natembeya’s security dates back to November 2025, when the governor alleged that his security detail had been withdrawn on the night of November 25 and 26, prompting him to move to court.
On December 4, 2025, Justice E.C. Mwita issued conservatory orders directing the Inspector General of Police to immediately reinstate the security assigned to the governor pending further orders of the court.
The December 2025 order formed part of the basis of the original petition, which the court has been preparing to determine.
During proceedings on May 20, 2026, Mr Simiyu, the governor’s lawyer, informed the court that his client’s security had been restored in compliance with the orders.
The respondents told the court that they had filed grounds of opposition dated December 15, 2025, and argued that the petition had been overtaken by events.
She said the respondents were prepared to have the matter determined through written submissions if the governor insisted on pursuing it.
The court subsequently issued directions on how the petition would be argued and set timelines for the filing of submissions by both sides.
The matter came up for mention on June 22, 2026, to fix a judgment date.
On that day, the respondents’ lawyer sought seven additional days to file submissions in response to those filed by the governor’s lawyer that morning.
The court granted the request and scheduled a further mention for September 30, 2026.
When the parties returned to court on September 30, Justice Aburili confirmed that they had complied with the court’s directions and fixed December 3, 2026, as the date for judgment.
The judge said she had already started writing the judgment when the governor filed the fresh application concerning the alleged withdrawal of his security in October.
She noted that the new application raised issues arising from events that occurred almost a year after the incident at the centre of the original petition.
In the judge’s view, the two disputes could not be merged simply because they involved the same governor and his security arrangements.
She said the governor remained entitled to seek legal remedies over the October incident but had to do so through a separate petition rather than introduce new facts into the pending case.
Justice Aburili ordered that the original petition would proceed to judgment as scheduled, unless the court was ready to deliver it earlier.
The governor is therefore free to challenge the alleged October withdrawal through fresh proceedings, while the court continues to prepare its decision on the original dispute.
