High Court Slams Door on President Ruto’s Advisers, Refuses to Suspend Ruling
The High Court has dismissed fresh applications seeking to suspend its earlier decision that nullified the appointment of several presidential advisers, dealing a significant blow to efforts to temporarily reinstate the officials as they pursue an appeal.
In a ruling delivered on Tuesday, February 3, Justice Bahati Mwamuye held that the applications filed by the respondents and interested parties raised issues that had already been conclusively determined by the court. He ruled that the matter was res judicata, a legal doctrine that bars courts from reopening disputes that have been finally settled.
“The doctrine of res judicata prevents a matter from being endlessly litigated,” Justice Mwamuye stated, adding that the court could not grant reliefs that were substantially similar to those already considered and rejected.
The judge noted that the applicants had failed to introduce any new facts or evidence demonstrating a likelihood of injustice that would justify suspending the initial ruling. He further observed that concerns raised over the alleged duplication of government offices had been addressed comprehensively in the earlier judgment.
The applications sought a stay of execution to allow 21 presidential advisers to resume work for a period of six months, ostensibly to complete handover processes and avoid what they described as an operational crisis within the executive. The advisers also argued that the stay was necessary to give them time to lodge and pursue an appeal at the Court of Appeal.
“We want to go to the Court of Appeal since we’ve exhausted the High Court,” the respondents said through their lawyer, urging the court to grant temporary relief pending the appeal.
However, the court was unconvinced, holding that the intended appeal did not, on its own, warrant a stay of execution. Justice Mwamuye emphasised that allowing the advisers to continue serving would effectively reverse the earlier decision and undermine the authority of the court.
During the proceedings, civil society organisation Katiba Institute strongly opposed the applications. Represented by lawyer Malidzo Nyawa, the institute argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to revisit matters it had already determined.
“This court has already pronounced itself on these issues, and it cannot reopen them through the back door,” Nyawa submitted, urging the judge to dismiss the applications in their entirety.
The dispute stems from an earlier High Court ruling that found the creation and appointment of presidential advisers unconstitutional. In that decision, the court held that the offices had been established in violation of the Constitution and public service laws, leading to the suspension of the appointments and the halting of salary payments.
The court found that the positions duplicated existing functions within government ministries and departments, raising concerns about inefficiency and misuse of public resources. It further ruled that mandatory procedures had not been followed before the appointments were made.
Specifically, the court cited the failure to seek advisory input from the Public Service Commission, the absence of public participation, lack of competitive recruitment, and the omission of approvals on remuneration structures and budgetary implications.
President William Ruto has previously relied on a group of advisers, including economist David Ndii, to provide policy guidance and help conceptualise key government projects. However, the ruling has cast uncertainty over the future of such advisory roles within the presidency.
With Tuesday’s decision, the advisers remain barred from resuming office unless they secure a favourable outcome at the Court of Appeal. Legal analysts say the ruling reinforces judicial insistence on strict adherence to constitutional and statutory requirements in the creation of public offices.
As the matter shifts to the appellate court, attention is now focused on whether the advisers will succeed in overturning the High Court’s findings or whether the decision will stand as a defining precedent on executive appointments.
ALSO READ: Oburu Odinga Denies Eyeing Deputy President Position in 2027 Talks With UDA
High Court Slams Door on President Ruto’s Advisers, Refuses to Suspend Ruling
