Hello

Your subscription is almost coming to an end. Don’t miss out on the great content on Nation.Africa

Ready to continue your informative journey with us?

Hello

Your premium access has ended, but the best of Nation.Africa is still within reach. Renew now to unlock exclusive stories and in-depth features.

Reclaim your full access. Click below to renew.

Why court dismissed petition seeking removal of Nairobi county minister Charles Kerich

Charles Kerich.

Nairobi County Finance Executive Charles Kerich.

Photo credit: Lucy Wanjiru | Nation Media Group

The High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the removal of Nairobi County Executive Committee Member (CECM) for Mobility Charles Kerich from office over alleged gross misconduct arising from his previous conviction for contempt of court.

Justice Patricia Nyaundi dismissed the petition filed by Bryan Yongo, ruling that it was premature because the petitioner had failed to exhaust the statutory mechanisms for removing a county executive committee member.

The judge said the petitioner was essentially inviting the court to venture into territory assigned to the Governor, the County Assembly and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC).

She noted that the court would only intervene where it was demonstrated that the body or individual mandated by law to handle the matter had failed to act.

“On account of the foregoing, I will uphold the Preliminary Objection and find that the Petition, being premature, is struck out,” said Justice Nyaundi.

Mr Yongo had argued that Mr Kerich was unfit to continue holding public office after the High Court found him in contempt of court last year for failing to settle a legal fees debt.

Mr Kerich, who was then in charge of Finance and Economic Affairs, escaped a three-month jail term after the court lifted orders directing him to serve the sentence following an agreement to settle the Sh106 million debt owed to Kwengu and Company Advocates.

The CECM entered into a consent with the law firm after agreeing to a payment plan that included an immediate payment of Sh30 million. Mr Kerich had attributed the delay in settling the debt to county government bureaucracy.

Under the agreement, the outstanding balance was to be paid in two instalments of Sh36.7 million each.

Mr Yongo argued that Mr Kerich was disqualified from holding any other State office under Article 75(3) of the Constitution.

He sought declarations that Mr Kerich, having been found in contempt of court in a ruling delivered by Justice Francis Gikonyo on October 14, 2025, and allegedly failing to purge the contempt, had violated several constitutional provisions.

He also wanted the court to declare that Mr Kerich's conduct amounted to a gross violation of the Constitution and the law, as well as gross misconduct under Section 40 of the County Governments Act.

The petitioner further sought a declaration that Mr Kerich was unfit to continue holding State office under Articles 73 and 75 of the Constitution, read together with the Leadership and Integrity Act.

In addition, he wanted an order of mandamus compelling the Nairobi Governor to remove Mr Kerich from office within 30 days.

However, Mr Kerich challenged the petition, arguing that it was premature, incompetent and an abuse of the court process because the petitioner had failed to exhaust the statutory remedies available for removing a county executive committee member.

He maintained that the court lacked jurisdiction to initiate his removal because the petitioner had not invoked the procedure prescribed by the Constitution and the County Governments Act.

In response, Mr Yongo argued that statutory mechanisms could not limit the court's constitutional mandate under Articles 22, 23, 165(3)(b) and (d), and 258 of the Constitution.

He maintained that the enforcement of Chapter Six of the Constitution was a shared responsibility and that the reliefs he sought went beyond the mandate of the statutory bodies.

The petitioner conceded that the law provided a mechanism for removing a county executive committee member but argued that his case raised broader constitutional questions that fell within recognised exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion.

He therefore urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection and allow the petition to proceed to a full hearing on its merits.

However, Justice Nyaundi upheld the objection, finding that the petition had been brought prematurely.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.