The directive by Justice Gregory Mutai sets the stage for another legal battle over Sonko’s removal from office in December 2020, with the former governor arguing that questions surrounding the conduct of one of the judges who handled his initial challenge warrant a fresh examination of the case.
Sonko is seeking to overturn the judgments that dismissed his challenges to the impeachment, contending that subsequent findings of judicial misconduct against former High Court judge Said Juma Chitembwe have raised serious concerns about the fairness and constitutional validity of the proceedings.
At the centre of his petition is Chitembwe’s participation in a three-judge bench that dismissed the original challenges to his removal from office.
Sonko argues that the findings against the former judge undermine confidence in the impartiality of the proceedings and justify reopening the matter.
The court’s decision to prioritise the petition does not, however, amount to a determination that Sonko’s impeachment was unlawful. The substantive questions, including whether the judgments can legally be set aside, remain for the court to determine.
Sonko challenges judgments that upheld his removal
In his petition, Sonko wants the High Court to declare null and void the original judgment delivered on June 24, 2021, alongside subsequent appellate decisions that upheld his impeachment.
He argues that the judicial misconduct findings against Chitembwe have a bearing on the proceedings in which the former judge participated, raising questions about whether the decisions should continue to stand.
The petition relies on a Supreme Court decision upholding findings against Chitembwe, with Sonko maintaining that the issues established during the disciplinary process are relevant to the dispute over his removal.
The former governor is asking the court to direct that the consolidated petitions challenging his impeachment be reheard on their merits before an expanded bench appointed by the Chief Justice.
Such an order, if granted, would reopen a dispute that has already passed through several levels of Kenya’s judicial system.
Sonko is also seeking orders to restrain the enforcement of the challenged judgments while the petition is being considered. He wants Kenya Law Reports directed to remove the disputed decisions from its online records and is seeking exemplary and punitive damages over alleged violations of his constitutional rights.
These are prayers presented by the petitioner and would require judicial consideration before any of them could be granted.
How Sonko’s impeachment unfolded
Sonko’s legal troubles over his removal from the Nairobi governorship date back to December 2020, when the Nairobi City County Assembly voted to impeach him over allegations that included abuse of office, gross misconduct and inability to perform the functions of the office.
The Senate subsequently upheld his removal, prompting him to challenge the decision in court.
On June 24, 2021, a three-judge High Court bench comprising Justices Said Juma Chitembwe, William Korir and Weldon Korir dismissed the consolidated petitions challenging the impeachment, finding that the removal process had complied with the constitutional and statutory requirements.
Sonko continued his legal fight, taking the dispute to the Supreme Court. However, on July 15, 2022, the apex court dismissed his appeal, finding that the impeachment proceedings before the County Assembly and Senate had been conducted in accordance with the law.
The Supreme Court concluded that Sonko had been given adequate time and facilities to respond to the allegations against him and that the impeachment process met the applicable constitutional requirements. <Cite refs={}/>
That decision dealt a major blow to his political ambitions, particularly his attempts to contest the Mombasa gubernatorial seat in the 2022 General Election.
Judicial misconduct claims at the centre of the new case
Sonko’s latest petition introduces a different legal argument: whether subsequent findings of judicial misconduct against a judge who participated in the original proceedings can provide a sufficient basis for invalidating decisions that have already been upheld on appeal.
His case places the integrity of judicial proceedings and the constitutional right to a fair and impartial hearing at the heart of the dispute.
The petition raises a broader question for Kenya’s justice system: what legal consequences should follow when misconduct findings emerge against a judicial officer who participated in deciding a case?
At the same time, such findings do not automatically invalidate every judgment delivered by the affected judge. The court would have to examine the circumstances, the legal basis for reopening the dispute and whether the alleged violations justify the remedies being sought.
The challenge is particularly significant because Sonko is seeking to revisit decisions that have already received consideration at the highest level of the judiciary.
A fresh test for the courts
The expedited hearing places Sonko’s renewed challenge on the judicial agenda, but its eventual outcome will depend on the merits of his arguments and the applicable constitutional and procedural rules.
The court must consider whether the alleged misconduct provides a legally sustainable basis for setting aside the earlier judgments, as well as whether the requested rehearing and other remedies can be granted.
For Sonko, a favourable ruling could create an avenue to revisit the legal decisions that confirmed his removal from office. However, even if the petition proceeds to a substantive hearing, that would not by itself guarantee the nullification of the judgments or restore his eligibility to hold public office.
The dispute also touches on a fundamental principle of constitutional governance: the need to preserve public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary while ensuring that final court decisions are not reopened without a recognised legal basis.
As the proceedings move forward, the central issue will be whether the allegations raised by Sonko meet the legal threshold required to revisit the judgments that brought his tenure as Nairobi governor to an end.
}
About The Author
