Blow to Gachagua as court dismisses plea challenging ouster

The High Court has declined former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s plea to freeze 10 cases challenging his impeachment.

High Court Judges Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Freda Mugambi said that the applications were seeking to squash their earlier orders declining to halt the cases.

They however allowed Gema Watho, a lawyers’ lobby, to amend their court papers.

“This prayer is a camouflaged application for the stay of the proceedings which we dismissed. This court having declined the application for stay, and there being no orders for stay, we are inclined to declined the application,” said Justice Ogola.

They said that they will only down their tools if they will be served with orders requiring them to freeze the cases.

Gachagua’s lawyers and those from the government and Parliament on Thursday clashed over the former deputy president’s prayers.

On one hand, Gachagua’s lawyers urged High Court Judges Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Freda Mugambi to wait until the Court of Appeal decides whether they were properly empaneled before deciding whether to continue hearing the cases.

On the other, AG, National Assembly and Senate pushed for an expedited hearing.

Lawyer John Njomo, for Gachagua, told the trio that the appeals were on an advanced stage and would be heard soon.

Also appearing for Gachagua, lawyer Dudley Ochiel argued that the court should freeze the files until next term, or simply after April.

“We believe the hearing is imminent and when we come to you before the end of this term to allow the Court of Appeal to have the cases out of its way. No one is keener to have the cases settled than Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua,” argued Ochiel.

Gachagua’s argument was supported by Gema Watho, a lawyers’ lobby, who argued that the Court of Appeal needed to settle whether Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu can empanel a bench or not.

 Gema Watho Lawyers Ndegwa Njiru and Kibe Mungai also urged the Judges to allow them to put further affidavits from the registrar of political parties to support their case.

“You will simply be closing your eyes that a superior court is ceased of a fundamental question regarding the empanelment of this bench. You’ll be rendering the appeal a nugatory exercise. There has never been a delay in these proceedings. All we are asking is court be reasonable time to allow Court of Appeal to adjudicate the case before it,” argued Ndegwa. 

In opposition, National Assembly’s lawyer Eric Gumbo urged the court not to allow adjournment of the cases.

He claimed that Gachagua and other petitioners were blowing hot and cold about the hearing.

According to him, initially, they were pushing to fastrack the cases. He alleged that they were now seeking to halt the wheels of justice.

“They sought for stay at the Court of Appeal which was not granted. The respondents want the cases be heard as early as possible. They sought to have the cases fast tracked when they were seeking temporary orders. On the other hand, they want to have the hearing suspended. They cannot have it both ways. What is good for the goose is good for the gander,” replied Gumbo.

He alleged that the orders sought for adjournment were meant for ‘forum shopping.’

Gumbo said that his client had already replied to all the cases and he was ready for the battle.

Senate’s lawyer Prof. Tom Ojienda on the other hand suggested that the cases should either be either withdrawn or the court dismiss them.

He claimed that lawyers were demonizing the judiciary online for delays while they were the cause.

“We cannot politicize a judicial process. If they are not willing to proceed, let them withdraw the cases or come in court and say they will not proceed and you dismiss the cases,” argued Ojienda.

Attorney General Dorcas Oduor summed up the opposition.

Her lawyer Emmanuel Bitta said that the petitioners had enough time to prepare for their cases. He urged the judges to go flat out.

“Once you institute a public litigation, the proceedings do not proceed at your convenience. The petitioners had at least 60 days, there is no justification for court to allow them to panel beat their cases further,” argued Bitta.

“You will simply be closing your eyes that a superior court is ceased of a fundamental  question regarding the empanelment of this bench. You’ll be rendering the appeal a nugatory exercise. There has never been a delay in these proceedings. All we are asking is reasonable time to allow Court of Appeal to adjudicate the case before it,” argued Ndegwa.