A three-judge bench of the High Court will deliver a ruling on July 31, 2025, to determine whether Deputy President Kithure Kindiki is lawfully in office, as legal and political turbulence surrounding the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua continues to unfold.

The bench comprising Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima, and Lady Justice Freda Mugambi set the ruling date during a charged court session on Thursday afternoon, where multiple parties sought directions in the consolidated petitions challenging Gachagua’s impeachment and Kindiki’s elevation.

The legal showdown follows a Court of Appeal judgment issued on May 9, which found that the initial three-judge bench previously appointed to hear the matter had been “illegally and unlawfully constituted” by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, contravening constitutional provisions.

“Given the directions we issued on May 29, 2025, and in view of the need for comprehensive directions on the way forward in respect of the Kerugoya petitions, this court shall render further directions on these matters and on the case management in the ruling to be delivered on July 31,” said Justice Ogola on behalf of the bench.

The move comes after Kerugoya Woman Representative Njeri Maina and MCA David Mathenge sought clarification on their certificate of applications filed last year. 

Through lawyers Andrew Muge and George Sakimpa, the two politicians urged the court to clarify whether two previous court orders issued in 2024 by Justices Chacha Mwita and Richard Mwongo, barring the implementation of Gachagua’s Senate impeachment, remain in force.

“We seek to know whether our applications and the orders issued by Justices Mwita and Mwongo in October last year have been addressed in light of the Court of Appeal’s decision,” said lawyer Muge.

Njeri and Mathenge are also seeking directions on the status of their pending applications before the cases can be fixed for hearing.

Adding to the complexity, Gachagua, through his lawyer, Paul Muite, told the bench that they had filed an urgent application dated June 18, seeking to formally withdraw four pre-impeachment petitions, claiming that events had overtaken the suits.

However, the move triggered fresh conflict when Fredrick Mula, an activist, filed an application seeking to substitute himself as the petitioner in case Gachagua wishes to withdraw.

Senior Counsel Muite accused Mula of attempting to hijack Petition number 522 of 2024, one of the cases filed before impeachment by the Senate which the former DP seeks to have dropped for having been overtaken by events

Addressing Justices Ogolla, Mrima, and Mugambi, Muite expressed frustration, calling Mula’s move “hostile and irregular.”

“Your Lordships will recall that when we last appeared before you, we sought to withdraw Petition No. 522 of 2024 to allow amendments. However, we have now received an application from an individual we do not know, seeking to be substituted as petitioner,” Muite said.

“This individual claims that the matter is of public interest and wants to take over our case. That cannot and should not happen without the consent of my client.”

Muite warned that such a substitution could allow the case to be prosecuted in a manner prejudicial to Gachagua.

To preempt the move, Muite said they had formally filed an urgent application on June 18 seeking to officially withdraw Petition 522, which had not yet been accepted by the court.

“That matter came before my Lord Justice Ogolla this morning and was directed to be mentioned before this bench this afternoon,” he explained.

“We seek directions on the prosecution of our application to withdraw. If Mula wishes to pursue substitution, that too can be heard. We are in your Lordships’ hands.”

“The issues we wish to include in our amended petition may be compromised by Mula’s sudden involvement. We cannot proceed until the court rules on our withdrawal application.”

Muite told the judges that Mula’s decision has frustrated the court’s directions allowing them to amend their petition challenging the impeachment of Gachagua.

Mula, through his lawyer, responded confidently: “I have been served with Gachagua’s application dated June 16, 2025, seeking to officially terminate pre-impeachment cases. I have filed a replying affidavit. I have not yet received responses from the other parties regarding my substitution application,” he told the judges.

Following the latest twist, lawyer Paul Nyamodi, representing the National Assembly, reminded the court that it had given clear directions on May 29 regarding the pending applications.

Nyamodi criticised a fresh application by the petitioners seeking to form a new bench by Gachagua and other petitioners as “absurd” and aimed at delaying proceedings.

“The Chief Justice is not a judge of the High Court. The petitioners are not interested in prosecuting this case; they’re simply using delay tactics,” Nyamodi argued, urging the current bench to stay the course.

His sentiments were echoed by lawyer Peter Wanyama, representing Speaker Moses Wetang’ula and Deputy Speaker Gladys Boss Shollei. Wanyama dismissed the request to refer the recusal application to Chief Justice Martha Koome.

“You have no jurisdiction to review or set aside the Chief Justice’s decision. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they should seek judicial review,” Wanyama submitted.