Follow-up: Supreme Court dismisses both applications in Rigathi Gachagua dispute — no High Court stay, no cross-appeal strike-out

Nairobi, January 30, 2026 — The Supreme Court has issued an interlocutory ruling in SC Petition (Applic) No. E032 of 2025, The National Assembly v H.E. Rigathi Gachagua & 66 Others, dismissing two consolidated applicationsfiled by Rigathi Gachagua and the National Assembly, with no orders as to costs. 

The ruling does not determine the merits of the wider impeachment-related petitions pending at the High Court. Instead, it resolves a procedural fight over whether the Supreme Court should (a) halt High Court proceedings and sanitize the record, and (b) strike out Gachagua’s cross-appeal before the substantive hearing.

What the Court decided

In its final orders, the Court dismissed:

• Gachagua’s Notice of Motion dated 17 July 2025, and

• The National Assembly’s Notice of Motion dated 23 September 2025,

  and made no order on costs due to the public-interest character of the matter. 

Multiple outlets reported the same practical outcome: both motions failed, the High Court proceedings remain alive, and the dispute returns to the substantive appeal/cross-appeal framework. 

Why Gachagua failed to stop the High Court proceedings

Gachagua’s application sought, among other prayers, a stay of proceedings in Nairobi HC Petition No. E565 of 2024 (consolidated with Kerugoya petitions). The Supreme Court rejected that request on jurisdiction, holding that since its appellate mandate is to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal, it can only issue a stay of further proceedings in the Court of Appeal, not the High Court.

The Court reiterated its own prior guidance: it cannot “frog-leap” the Court of Appeal to grant relief against High Court proceedings. 

That single finding matters because it blocks a recurring tactic in political litigation: t locutory applications to freeze lower-court tracks that are still active.

Why the National Assembly failed to strike out the cross-appeal

The National Assembly also sought a procedural victory: summary dismissal of Gachagua’s cross-appeal. The Supreme Court rejected that attempt, holding that the cross-appeal does not fall within the parameters for summary dismissal and must proceed. 

In doing so, the Court noted that although the central constitutional dispute below focused d 259(3)(b)** (on authority to empanel a High Court bench), Article 50 (fair hearing) had been applied by both the High Court and Court of Appeal on bias/recusal, anchoring the cross-appeal within the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisdiction. 

Media coverage of the ruling highlighted the same point: the Court declined to strike out the d that the issues raised warrant full determination rather than threshold disposal. 

The case in one line: the fight is about empanelment authority, not a final impeachment verdict

Today’s decision sits within a larger constitutional dispute triggered by impeachment-related litigation — but the Supreme Court appeal itself is framed around who had authority to empanel the High Court bench under Article 165(4) and related constitutional provisions.

The Supreme Court’s ruling today does not decide that core question on the merits; it simply clears the path by refusing both sides’ attempts to win early through interlocutory shortcuts. 

What this means now

1. High Court proceedings are not stayed — the Supreme Court says it lacks jurisdiction to halt them through this route. 

2. Gachagua’s cross-appeal survives — the N bid fails. 

3. The dispute moves to substantive hearing on the appeal and cross-appeal, rather than being cut down rch5turn0search8

Timeline box

• Oct 2024: Impeachment triggers multiple Hi aise substantial constitutional questions and bench-empanelment becomes contested. 

• 9 May 2025: Court of Appeal decision in the related consolidated appeals becomes the basis for the Supreme Court appeal/cross-appeal pathway. 

• 30 Jan 2026: Supreme Court dismisses both interlocutory applications; no costs. 

Bottom line

The Supreme Court’s January 30 ruling is a procedural decision with significant consequence: no High Court freeze, no cross-appeal strike-out, and no final determination of the wider impeachment litigation. What it does do is force the parties back onto the substantive track—where the empanelment and recusal questions will be determined on merit, not on threshold motions.