NAIROBI, Kenya — Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has moved to the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn the High Court judgment that upheld his impeachment, arguing that the court failed to grant an effective remedy despite finding that his constitutional rights were violated during the process.
Gachagua is challenging the June 2026 judgment delivered by Justices E.O. Ogola, A. Mrima and Dr. F. Mugambi, which left his removal from office intact while awarding him Sh50 million in constitutional damages.
In his appeal, Gachagua argues that the High Court erred by allowing the Senate resolution removing him from office to stand after finding violations of his rights to a fair hearing and fair administrative action.
He maintains that courts have the authority to intervene where an impeachment process violates the Constitution, arguing that “no act in violation of the Constitution is outside the reach of the Courts.”
Gachagua further argues that the right to a fair trial is an absolute constitutional guarantee that cannot be sacrificed because of political considerations or the timelines governing an impeachment process.
Gachagua challenges impeachment procedure
According to Gachagua, the High Court correctly recognised the importance of the investigatory stage and committee process in resolving evidentiary issues but ultimately reached what he describes as an “absurd, impracticable, illogical or artificial conclusion” when applying the relevant constitutional provisions.
He also argues that the National Assembly and Senate failed to facilitate meaningful public participation before his removal.
Gachagua says the process did not meet constitutional requirements for public participation to be meaningful both qualitatively and quantitatively.
He is also challenging the constitutionality of National Assembly Standing Order 64(2), arguing that the timelines prescribed under the provision undermined meaningful public participation and his right to a fair hearing.
Appeal challenges Kindiki’s appointment
Gachagua’s appeal also challenges the process through which Prof. Kithure Kindiki was nominated and approved to replace him as Deputy President.
He argues that the High Court erred in finding that public participation was not constitutionally required in the nomination and approval of his successor under Article 149(1) of the Constitution.
The former Deputy President has also raised a separate issue concerning an alleged discrepancy between the judgment delivered orally in open court and the written judgment subsequently issued.
Dispute over High Court judgment record
Gachagua claims that during the live delivery of the judgment, the judges read four additional paragraphs immediately after paragraphs 484, 488, 503 and 508, but that those portions were later omitted from the written judgment.
He argues that the alleged omission amounted to an improper modification of the judgment after its delivery and was inconsistent with the High Court’s status as a superior court of record.
According to Gachagua, the discrepancy has deprived him of the benefit of the court’s complete reasoning as he pursues his appeal.
He wants the Court of Appeal to remit the judgment to the High Court for the limited purpose of correcting the record.
He is also seeking an order directing the High Court Registrar, within 14 days, to ensure that the portions allegedly read in open court but omitted from the written judgment are inserted into the record.
Gachagua rejects Sh50 million damages
Gachagua is also dissatisfied with the Sh50 million awarded to him as constitutional damages.
He argues that monetary compensation alone was insufficient to vindicate the Constitution, restore his dignity and deter future violations because the High Court did not invalidate the impeachment itself.
He has further faulted the High Court for failing to determine whether a Deputy President removed through an unconstitutional impeachment process would be entitled to retirement benefits.
Gachagua now wants the Court of Appeal to declare the Senate resolution passed on October 17, 2024, removing him from office, unconstitutional, null and void.
He is also asking the appellate court to grant the remedies sought in his Further Amended Petition dated August 13, 2025, order correction of the High Court record and award him the costs of the appeal.
The case now places the legality of Gachagua’s impeachment, the constitutional safeguards governing removal from office and the limits of judicial intervention in impeachment proceedings before the Court of Appeal.
