Court of Appeal Refuses Gachagua’s Bid to Block Panel on Impeachment Case
Gachagua’s legal team contends that the ruling by DCJ Mwilu to empanel the three-judge bench was flawed and unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal. Photo/Capital News.
By Robert Mutasi
Impeached Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua faced another setback on Thursday when the Court of Appeal rejected his plea to halt proceedings by a three-judge bench assigned to review his impeachment.
The bench, constituted by Deputy Chief Justice (DCJ) Philomena Mwilu, is set to hear arguments on November 6, 2024, to determine Gachagua’s fate in this high-stakes legal battle.
In a statement issued on behalf of the appellate court, Justice Patrick Kiage, alongside Justices George Odunga and Agrey Muchelule, emphasized the urgency and significance of the case, which has garnered intense public interest.
“The matter is urgent and has huge public interest,” remarked Justice Kiage, the presiding judge. “The members of the bench, though engaged in other matters in the course of next week, will assemble at 12 noon on Wednesday for the highlighting of submissions on the matter.”
The appellate judges’ decision indicates that Gachagua’s request for a stay of the DCJ’s decision to assign the panel has been dismissed for now, paving the way for proceedings on the scheduled date.
The court’s move signals a commitment to address the matter expediently, reflecting the urgency that surrounds Gachagua’s position and the implications his case may have on Kenya’s constitutional and political landscape.
Gachagua’s legal team contends that the ruling by DCJ Mwilu to empanel the three-judge bench was flawed and unconstitutional.
In their appeal, they argue that the Constitution grants only the Chief Justice the authority to appoint and assign judges to cases, claiming Mwilu overstepped her mandate.
“The applicant contends that the stated ruling is based on not only a misinterpretation of Article 165 (4) of the Constitution but also a violation of Articles 25, 27, 47, 48, 50 (1), and 260,” reads the appeal.
According to the defense, Mwilu’s decision contradicts the Constitution, which restricts such powers to the Chief Justice alone, rendering the bench’s appointment questionable.
With the next hearing set for November 6, anticipation builds as both legal experts and the public await arguments that could set precedents concerning judicial authority in Kenya.
If Gachagua’s team succeeds in demonstrating that Mwilu’s decision was unconstitutional, it may reshape interpretations of judicial roles and checks on executive powers.
This case has not only drawn political intrigue but also has significant constitutional implications.
The outcome of this appeal could impact not only Gachagua’s political future but also redefine the procedural boundaries of Kenya’s judiciary at the highest levels.