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 but awarded him KSh50 million in constitutional damages. In his appeal, Gachagua argues that the High Court erred by allowing the Senate’s decision removing him from office to stand after finding violations of his rights to a fair hearing and fair administrative action.
He maintains that courts retain the power to intervene where an impeachment process violates the Constitution, stating in his appeal that “no act in violation of the Constitution is outside the reach of the Courts.” Gachagua 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. He has also challenged the High Court’s interpretation of Article 145 of the Constitution and its findings on the procedure used during his impeachment.
According to the former Deputy President, the court correctly recognised the importance of the investigatory stage and the committee process in resolving evidentiary issues but ultimately arrived at what he describes as an “absurd, impracticable, illogical or artificial conclusion” in its application of the constitutional provisions.
Gachagua further argues that the National Assembly and Senate failed to facilitate meaningful public participation before his removal, saying the process did not meet constitutional standards requiring 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 as well as his right to a fair hearing.
The appeal also challenges the process through which Prof. Kithure Kindiki was nominated and approved to replace him as Deputy President.
Gachagua 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. He has also raised a separate issue concerning what he says is a discrepancy between the judgment delivered orally in open court and the written judgment subsequently issued.
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 and direct 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.
Gachagua is also dissatisfied with the KSh50 million in constitutional damages awarded to him, arguing that monetary compensation alone was insufficient to vindicate the Constitution, restore his dignity and deter future violations because the 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 the correction of the High Court record and award him the costs of the appeal.
