Former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko has moved to court seeking to invalidate a judgment that upheld his impeachment, citing alleged violations of judicial independence and his right to a fair hearing.
Sonko wants the court to reopen the impeachment battle and halt the implementation and continued reliance on the June 24, 2021 judgment that dismissed his challenge to his removal from office pending the hearing and determination of his fresh constitutional petition.
“The court be pleased to issue a conservatory order staying and suspending the continued implementation, enforcement and reliance upon the adverse legal effect of the judgment delivered on June 24, 2021, together with consequential appeals, judgments, rulings and decrees, pending the inter partes hearing and determination of the application," Sonko seeks.
In the urgent application filed at the High Court’s Constitutional and Human Rights Division, Sonko wants the court to quash the court's earlier decision to uphold his impeachment following the new developments surrounding the proceedings against sacked former High Court judge Said Chitembwe, who was part of the judges who handled his case.
He argues that the subsequent proceedings against former High Court Judge Chitembwe raise questions about the impartiality and independence of the three-judge bench that determined his case.
The bench comprised Justices Chitembwe, Wilfrida Okwany and Weldon Korir.
Sonko’s application follows the Supreme Court’s December 28, 2023 decision dismissing Chitembwe’s appeal against a tribunal’s recommendation that he be removed from office over his conduct as a judge.
He argues that the findings in those proceedings raise fundamental questions about whether the judgment that upheld his removal can continue to have legal consequences.
In his supporting affidavit, Sonko claims that his constitutional rights were violated during the hearing of his impeachment challenge and that the subsequent developments provide grounds for questioning the integrity of the process.
He alleges that Chitembwe had direct contact with a man identified as Jirani, whom he claims was soliciting money on the judge’s behalf in exchange for a favourable decision.
Sonko further alleges that evidence of impropriety, including video footage, was presented before the Supreme Court.
He also claims that Chitembwe admitted on tape to being pressured by political interference from State House to lock him out of public office through an adverse judgment.
“The hearing was marred by violations of Article 160 that guarantees judicial independence, violations of Article 50 (1) of the Constitution that guarantees a fair hearing and further violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct and Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct,” Sonko states in his affidavit.
He argues that the judgment has continued to affect his political, commercial and personal interests, claiming that third parties have withdrawn from commercial and political arrangements because of continued reliance on the decision
Sonko, who was elected Nairobi governor in 2017, was removed from office in December 2020 following an impeachment process initiated by the Nairobi City County Assembly and upheld by the Senate.
He maintains that the judgment prevented him from exercising his political rights, including participating in the 2022 General Election.
In the application, Sonko seeks conservatory orders suspending the implementation, enforcement and reliance on the judgment and consequential decisions arising from it until the court determines his petition.
He argues that the orders would preserve the subject matter of the case rather than finally determine the dispute, and that the respondents would suffer no irreparable prejudice if the temporary relief were granted.
However, in directions issued by Milimani High Court Judge Gregory Mutai, the substantive suspension orders sought by Sonko. Instead, he directed that the petition and application be served on the respondents and interested parties within seven days.
“I have considered the Petition and the Notice of Motion, both dated October 14 2026, together with the supporting affidavits and the annexures thereto. In my view, the Petition and the Motion raise issues that ought to be determined at the earliest opportunity,” Justice Mutai stated.
The Judicial Service Commission and the Attorney General, alongside the interested parties, have been directed to enter appearance and file their responses within 14 days of service.
Sonko will then have 14 days after receiving the responses to file replies and written submissions in support of his petition and application.
The respondents and interested parties will also have 14 days after service of Sonko’s submissions to file their submissions opposing the application.
The judge directed that the parties highlight their written submissions on January 25, 2027, setting the stage for the court to consider the constitutional questions raised in the case.
