Katiba Institute has asked the High Court to reject an application seeking to suspend a judgment that nullified the appointment of President William Ruto’s 21 advisers.
In a fresh response filed in court, the public interest group argues that the advisers have no legal basis to seek a stay or a review of the decision, insisting that the court has already concluded the matter and cannot reopen it.
Katiba maintains that once a court renders a final judgment, it becomes functus officio and loses jurisdiction to reconsider its own ruling.
“A party cannot, through the guise of an application which is in substance and effect an appeal, invite this Court to reopen, reconsider, or sit in judgment over its own final decision,” the Institute states in its papers.
Through its advocate, Malidzo Nyawa, Katiba further argues that the advisers have failed to demonstrate any real prejudice that would arise if the orders declaring their appointments unconstitutional are not suspended.
The Institute dismisses claims that the absence of the advisers would cripple government operations, noting that the Executive has operated under the 2010 constitutional framework for years without the disputed offices.
“The President and the Executive have been able to deliver public services within the framework established by the Constitution before the creation of the contested offices. What are these cataclysmic or debilitating consequences that will suddenly befall the people of Kenya as they await the determination of an appeal, if any is filed?” Katiba asks.
Katiba also challenges the standing of the advisers to move the court, arguing that if there were genuine concerns about disruption to government operations, the application should have been brought by the Attorney General.
“If the application before the court is not about the Executive, whose interest is the application meant to serve? It is clear that the application is brought by the Interested Parties to serve their own interests,” the court filings state.
The dispute follows an earlier High Court judgment which found that the creation and staffing of the advisers’ offices violated the Constitution and declared all the appointments null and void.
