The High Court has upheld the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, but it did not let Parliament off without consequence.
In a judgment delivered on Monday, June 8, 2026, at the Milimani Ceremonial Hall in Nairobi, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Eric Ogola, Freda Mugambi, and Antony Mrima ruled that Parliament acted within the Constitution when it removed Gachagua from office. At the same time, the court found that the Senate violated his right to a fair hearing and awarded him KSh50 million in constitutional damages, to be paid by the Senate.
The ruling closes a legal battle that began when Gachagua became the first deputy president in Kenya’s history to be removed from office through the constitutional impeachment process in October 2024.
What the Court Decided
The bench addressed each of the main challenges Gachagua’s legal team raised and ruled as follows:
The IEBC was properly constituted. The court found that temporary vacancies in the commission at the time of the impeachment did not render it improperly constituted or undermine the validity of the process.
Public participation met the constitutional standard. The National Assembly conducted a participation exercise that satisfied the requirements of the Constitution before proceeding with the vote to remove Gachagua.
No bias was established. The court found no evidence that the outcome had been decided in advance or that the process was driven by political motive. The proceedings remained within constitutional and legal boundaries throughout.
The constitutional threshold was met. The grounds for removal and the manner in which Parliament applied them satisfied the standard the Constitution sets for removing a sitting deputy president.
Prof. Kithure Kindiki’s nomination was constitutional. The appointment of Kindiki as Gachagua’s replacement did not contradict any provision of the Constitution.
Where the Senate Fell Short
Despite upholding the impeachment, the court found one area where the process failed Gachagua. The Senate continued proceedings after his legal team requested an adjournment on medical grounds. The court ruled that refusing to pause the hearing at that point violated his right to a fair hearing under the Constitution. That violation forms the basis of the KSh50 million award in constitutional damages.
Gachagua had initially sought to be reinstated to office but later dropped that prayer. His legal team then focused on compensation, arguing that the flawed process caused him real loss. The court agreed — partially.
What It Means
The ruling affirms that Parliament holds the constitutional authority to remove a deputy president and that the process used against Gachagua cleared that bar. But it also establishes that procedural fairness binds Parliament just as firmly as any other institution. The Senate cannot rush proceedings against a respondent who has raised a legitimate reason to pause, even in a politically charged environment.
The Constitution Triggers in Me my Native Optimism for Kenya – Justice Joel Ngugi
