Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has appealed a High Court judgement that upheld his impeachment, arguing that the court erred in law by allowing his removal from office to stand despite finding that parts of the process violated his constitutional rights.
In his appeal filed at the Court of Appeal, Gachagua says he is dissatisfied with the judgement and decree delivered by Justices E.O. Ogola, A. Mrima and Dr. F. Mugambi in June 2026.
Gachagua argues that the High Court erred by holding that the Senate resolution to impeach him was final and beyond judicial review, despite the same court finding violations of his rights to a fair hearing and fair administrative action.
He maintains that the right to a fair trial is an absolute constitutional guarantee that cannot be sacrificed on the basis of constitutional timelines or political considerations.
“No act in violation of the Constitution is outside the reach of the Courts…” read the court papers.
The former DP has also challenged the High Court’s interpretation of Article 145 of the Constitution, which sets out the procedure for the impeachment of a Deputy President.
According to Gachagua, the High Court correctly found that the investigatory phase of the impeachment process was mandatory and that the committee route provided a mechanism for handling evidentiary complexities.
LEES OOK:
- Gachagua Accuses Kihika, Arama of Organizing Nakuru Convoy Attack
- Gachagua Warns Ruto Against Blaming Uhuru for His Political Woes
However, he argues that the court subsequently arrived at what he describes as an “absurd, impracticable, illogical or artificial conclusion” in applying Article 145.
Gachagua Challenges Public Participation
Gachagua has further challenged the adequacy of public participation during the impeachment process, arguing that both the National Assembly and Senate failed to meet constitutional requirements.
He contents that the proceedings fell short of standards set by the Supreme Court in British American Tobacco Kenya PLC v Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Health and Others, particularly the requirement that public participation should be meaningful both qualitatively and quantitatively.
He is also challenging the constitutionality of National Assembly Standing Order 64(2), arguing that the timelines provided under the provision undermined meaningful public participation and his right to a fair hearing.
Kindiki’s Appointment Challenged
The appeal also contests the High Court’s decision on the appointment of Prof. Kithure Kindiki as DP.
Gachagua argues that the court erred in determining that public participation was not constitutionally required during the nomination and approval of a DP under Article 149(1) of the Constitution.
Dispute Over Written Judgement
A significant aspect of Gachagua’s appeal concerns an alleged discrepancy between the judgement delivered orally in open court and the written judgement issued later.
He claims the three judges read four additional paragraphs immediately after paragraphs 484, 488, 503 and 508 during the delivery of the judgement, which was broadcast live.
According to the appeal, those paragraphs were subsequently omitted from the written judgement.
Gachagua argues that the High Court therefore “improperly modified” its judgement after delivery and acted contrary to its responsibilities as a superior court of record.
He says the alleged discrepancy has deprived him of the benefit of the reasoning contained in the portions of the judgement that were allegedly read in open court.
KSh50 Million Damages
The former DP is also challenging the relief granted by the High Court, including the Ksh50 million awarded to him as constitutional damages.
Gachagua argues that the amount was insufficient to vindicate the Constitution, restore his dignity and deter future violations because the court stopped short of declaring his impeachment unconstitutional, null and void.
He further faults the High Court for failing to determine whether a Deputy President removed through an unconstitutional impeachment process would be entitled to retirement benefits.
What Gachagua Wants From the Court of Appeal
In his appeal, Gachagua wants the Court of Appeal to declare the Senate resolution of October 17, 2024, which removed him from office, “unconstitutional, null and void.”
He is also asking the appellate court to grant the remedies he sought in his Further Amended Petition dated August 13, 2025.
Gachagua has further asked the Court of Appeal to remit the High Court judgement for the limited purpose of correcting the record.
He wants the High Court Registrar directed to ensure, within 14 days, that the portions allegedly read in open court but omitted from the written judgement are inserted into the official record.
He is also seeking costs of appeal.
