Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua will on Monday know if the High Court will uphold or overturn his impeachment in 2024.
The decision by justices Eric Ogolla, Anthony Mrima and Frida Mugambi is expected to shape the future of impeachment proceedings and define the extent to which courts can intervene in politically sensitive disputes.
The case has become a test of Parliament’s powers, judicial oversight and the constitutional safeguards for holders of public offices. The dispute traces its origins to October 4, 2024, when Kibwezi West MP Mwengi Mutuse sponsored an impeachment motion against Mr Gachagua.
Former Deputy President and DCP leader Rigathi Gachagua gestures during an interview with NTV at his Karen home in Nairobi on June 27, 2025.
Photo credit: Wilfred Nyangaresi | Nation Media Group
The National Assembly approved the motion on October 8 before forwarding it to the Senate, which upheld five charges and voted for his removal on the night of October 17.
The following day, President William Ruto nominated Prof Kithure Kindiki as DP, and the National Assembly approved his nomination hours later.
It took 13 days to table the motion for the Senate’s final vote. Mr Gachagua and 40 others took the matter to court, seeking to nullify the process.
After nearly 20 months of hearings and submissions, the judges must consider several constitutional questions.
The first issue is whether impeachment disputes are justiciable. The Attorney-General, Parliament, Senate and Prof Kindiki said impeachment is a political process entrusted to Parliament. They urged that the court not to substitute judicial opinion for parliamentary judgment.
Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua (left) and his wife Dorcus Rigathi leave the Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi on May 13, 2026, after the hearing of his legal challenge against his 2024 impeachment.
Photo credit: Billy Ogada| Nation Media Group
But petitioners said the constitution created a supervisory Judiciary with power to review exercises of public authority. They said Parliament cannot escape scrutiny just because a dispute carries political consequences.
Petitioners said Parliament collapsed its investigative, prosecutorial and adjudicative functions into one process. They claimed that senators merely endorsed the National Assembly’s conclusions without verifying that the charges were substantiated.
Respondents said both Houses complied with constitutional requirements. The judges must determine if constitutional thresholds were met.
Petitioners argued that Mr Gachagua was denied a chance after the Senate declined to adjourn proceedings despite being informed he was sick. Respondents countered that Mr Gachagua participated through his counsel and had adequate opportunity to present his defence.
Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua and his legal counsel Paul Muite before the Senate in Nairobi during the second day of his impeachment trial on October 17, 2024.
Photo credit: Dennis Onsongo | Nation Media Group
Medical evidence was one of the most explosive aspects of the case. Dr Daniel Gikonyo said Mr Gachagua was sick and that he admitted him to Karen Hospital on October 17, 2024 after he complained of chest pain. He said the President called to inquire about Mr Gachaguas condition.
Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, his wife Pastor Dorcas Rigathi, and their son Kevin Gachagua leave Karen Hospital in Nairobi on October 20, 2024.
Photo credit: Lucy Wanjiru | Nation Media Group
For the petitioners, the evidence demonstrated that top state actors knew Mr Gachagua was hospitalised during impeachment.
The Senate and Prof Kindiki saw “inconsistencies” in the records and the timing of the affidavit. Prof Kindiki’s lawyers suggested Mr Gachagua was not genuinely incapacitated. Judges will determine the weight and credibility of the medical evidence.
Petitioners said the National Assembly reached only about 200,000 people during public participation, or roughly 0.4 per cent of Kenya’s estimated population.
They also argued that the Senate could not rely on public participation conducted by the National Assembly, saying each House has separate responsibilities requiring independent public involvement.
The judges will determine if public participation was meaningful, inclusive and constitutionally compliant.
Another issue is the process used to remove a DP. Petitioners said Parliament improperly relied on presidential impeachment procedures without modification. They pointed to Article 145 and wanted to know if appropriate Standing Orders existed.
Then Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua during his impeachment hearing at the Senate in Nairobi on Wednesday, October 16, 2024.
Photo credit: Dennis Onsongo | Nation Media Group
For the respondents, the process complied with the constitutional provisions governing the removal of a DP. The court will tell if procedural defects rendered the impeachment invalid.
The petitioners said courts can review allegations supporting impeachment. Lawyers questioned Parliament’s findings on the accusation of hate speech, saying the National Cohesion and Integration Commission had neither summoned nor sanctioned Mr Gachagua.
Respondents argued courts should not re-evaluate factual findings made by Parliament. The court will rule on how far judicial oversight extends.
A petitioner challenged the legality of Prof Kindiki’s elevation as DP, saying the nomination, appointment and swearing-in were illegal. For the petitioners, if the impeachment is invalidated, judges must consider the legal status of Prof Kindiki’s appointment.
Petitioners said an unconstitutional impeachment cannot produce a valid succession. They questioned the level of public participation in his approval.
Deputy President Kithure Kindiki takes his oath of office during his swearing-in ceremony at KICC, Nairobi.
Photo credit: Francis Nderitu | Nation Media Group
Respondents maintained that Prof Kindiki assumed office through constitutional procedures approved by Parliament.
Mr Gachagua is seeking damages and compensation covering the remaining years he would have served as DP. Petitioners argued that compensation should follow when constitutional rights are breached.
Prof Kindiki opposed the claim. His lawyers said if the impeachment is nullified, Mr Gachagua would legally be deemed never to have left office.
They said future earnings cannot be awarded where removal itself is treated as nonexistent. The court must determine whether damages are available and, if so, their scope.
The final issue concerns the practical consequences of the court’s decision. Prof Kindiki’s lawyers warned that overturning the impeachment could lead to a constitutional crisis and potentially reinstate Mr Gachagua’s term as Deputy President.
However, petitioners dismissed these concerns as speculative, arguing that courts cannot avoid enforcing the Constitution because of potential political ramifications.
The court is expected to determine the effect of its orders and how any breaches of the Constitution should be remedied.
Therefore, Monday’s judgment will do far more than decide Rigathi Gachagua’s political future.
It will also define the limits of parliamentary power and clarify the role of the judiciary in political disputes, establishing the constitutional rules that will govern the removal of senior state officers for years to come.
