The Judiciary of Kenya has sought to clarify issues concerning a recent ruling by the Court of Appeal of Kenya that temporarily suspended a High Court ruling declaring the positions of Ruto’s presidential advisors unconstitutional.
On Saturday, in response to queries concerning how the ruling was communicated to all parties involved in the suit, Judiciary spokesperson Paul Ndemo said that they had followed due process in arriving at the ruling. This followed a recent controversy surrounding how the ruling was communicated to all parties involved in the suit.
The application to suspend the High Court ruling was heard by a panel of judges at the Court of Appeal on February 23. The judges said that they would deliver their ruling on April 24, 2026, or earlier if all parties were informed in time.
However, after hearing all arguments in the suit, they arrived at a conclusion earlier than expected. The judges then decided to deliver their ruling before the specified date in their earlier communication to all parties involved in the suit.
The Judiciary said that a communication informing all lawyers involved in the suit about the impending ruling was sent to them on March 12 by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal. The communication indicated that they would deliver their ruling to all involved parties the next day through the same communication channel.
The ruling was then dispatched to all lawyers involved in the suit on March 13 at 12:56pm through the same email addresses that had earlier been used to send communication to all involved parties regarding hearing sessions and virtual meetings scheduled for February.
He further noted that the Judiciary has been using electronic communication since 2020 to enhance efficiency and ensure that court rulings are communicated to the parties involved on time.
However, lawyers representing the petitioners have strongly disagreed with the Judiciary’s claims.
The advocate representing the Katiba Institute, Joshua Malidzo, claimed that he and his client did not receive any communication regarding the case, the virtual link, or the ruling itself.
The advocate claimed that the Judiciary failed to communicate with them regarding the case. He further claimed that he and his client only appeared before the court because a friend informed them that the case was going on.
The case attracted the attention of the former Law Society of Kenya President Nelson Havi also weighed in on the matter. In a statement posted online, he suggested—somewhat sarcastically—that the court seemed to have moved quickly from saying the ruling was not ready to releasing it earlier than expected.
The disagreement began after the Katiba Institute said it learnt through social media that the Court of Appeal had suspended the High Court ruling that had declared the Office of Advisors to the President unconstitutional.
The decision by the appellate court gave President William Ruto temporary relief after the High Court had earlier ordered the disbandment of his 21-member council of advisors.
