Katiba Institute has asked the High Court to decline an application filed by President William Ruto’s advisors seeking a stay of a judgment that declared their appointments unconstitutional. The civil society organization argues that the advisors have no legal grounds to challenge the ruling through review or stay and must instead pursue an appeal if they wish to contest the decision.
The case follows a recent High Court judgment that nullified the appointments of 21 advisors to the president, ruling that the creation and staffing of their offices violated the Constitution. The advisors subsequently moved to court seeking to suspend the implementation of the decision, prompting Katiba Institute to file a detailed response opposing the move.
In its submissions, Katiba Institute maintains that the court has already rendered a final judgment and therefore lacks jurisdiction to revisit the matter.
Katiba Institute Challenges Ruto Advisors Application
Through its lawyer, Malidzo Nyawa, Katiba Institute argued that the Ruto advisors application is an attempt to re-litigate issues that were conclusively determined by the court. The institute stated that once a court delivers a final judgment, it cannot reopen or reconsider the same decision under the guise of a stay or review application.
“A party cannot, through the guise of an application which is in substance and effect an appeal, invite this Court to reopen, reconsider, or sit in judgment over its own final decision,” Katiba said in court filings.
The institute emphasized that the proper legal route available to the advisors is an appeal to a higher court, not a request for the same court to suspend or rethink its ruling.
No Demonstrated Prejudice, Katiba Argues
Katiba Institute further submitted that the advisors have failed to demonstrate any prejudice they would suffer if the orders nullifying their appointments are not stayed. According to the institute, the application does not meet the legal threshold required for granting a stay.
It dismissed claims that the absence of the advisors would disrupt government operations, noting that Kenya’s Executive has functioned within constitutional limits for years without the contested offices.
“The President and the Executive have been able to deliver public services within the framework established by the Constitution before the creation of the contested offices,” Katiba argued. It questioned what sudden or catastrophic consequences would occur if the advisors remained out of office while an appeal, if any, is determined.
Attorney General Should Have Acted, Court Told
Katiba Institute also raised concerns about who should properly bring such an application. It argued that if there were genuine fears of disruption to government operations, the Attorney General, not individual advisors, should have moved the court.
“If the application before the court is not about the Executive, whose interest is the application meant to serve?” the institute asked in its submissions. It asserted that the advisors are acting primarily to protect their personal interests rather than the public good.
According to Katiba, the advisors’ move underscores why the court should decline to grant the stay, as the application lacks a clear constitutional or institutional basis.
Background to the Ruling
The High Court previously ruled that the establishment and staffing of the advisory offices were unconstitutional, effectively rendering the appointments of the 21 advisors null and void. The decision raised significant questions about executive power, public appointments, and adherence to constitutional structures.
As the court considers the latest submissions, the Ruto advisors application remains a key test of how far individuals affected by constitutional rulings can go in seeking interim relief. Katiba Institute’s position reinforces its long-standing advocacy for strict compliance with constitutional limits and judicial finality.
