A three-judge bench of the High Court will on July 31 determine whether Kithure Kindiki lawfully holds the office of Deputy President, amid ongoing legal battles following the controversial impeachment of Rigathi Gachagua.

Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Freda Mugambi set the ruling date during a tense court session on Thursday, where parties sought directions in the consolidated petitions challenging Gachagua’s removal and Kindiki’s elevation.

The hearing stems from a Court of Appeal judgment issued on May 9, which found that the initial bench that handled the petitions had been unlawfully constituted by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, violating constitutional procedure.

“Given the directions we issued on May 29, 2025, and in view of the need for comprehensive directions on the way forward in respect of the Kerugoya petitions, this court shall render further directions on these matters and on the case management in the ruling to be delivered on July 31,” said Justice Ogola on behalf of the bench.

The court session saw Kerugoya Woman Representative Njeri Maina and MCA David Mathenge, through their lawyers Andrew Muge and George Sakimpa, seek clarity on their applications and on whether previous court orders halting Gachagua’s impeachment were still in effect.

“We seek to know whether our applications and the orders issued by Justices Mwita and Mwongo in October last year have been addressed in light of the Court of Appeal’s decision,” said lawyer Muge.

The duo is also seeking directions on the status of their applications before the cases are formally fixed for hearing.

Meanwhile, Gachagua’s lawyer Paul Muite informed the bench that they had filed an urgent application on June 18 to withdraw four pre-impeachment petitions, arguing that the suits had been overtaken by recent developments.

However, this sparked a new legal twist after activist Fredrick Mula filed an application seeking to be substituted as petitioner in one of the cases should Gachagua withdraw.

Muite accused Mula of interfering with Petition No. 522 of 2024, calling the move “hostile and irregular.”

“Your Lordships will recall that when we last appeared before you, we sought to withdraw Petition No. 522 of 2024 to allow amendments. However, we have now received an application from an individual we do not know, seeking to be substituted as petitioner,” Muite said.

“This individual claims that the matter is of public interest and wants to take over our case. That cannot and should not happen without the consent of my client.”

Muite warned that allowing such a substitution could affect the course of the petition in ways that may harm Gachagua’s interests.

“To preempt the move, we filed an urgent application on June 18 to officially withdraw Petition 522, which has not yet been accepted by the court,” he said.

“That matter came before my Lord Justice Ogolla this morning and was directed to be mentioned before this bench this afternoon,” he added. “We seek directions on the prosecution of our application to withdraw. If Mula wishes to pursue substitution, that too can be heard. We are in your Lordships’ hands.”

Muite further argued that Mula’s intervention disrupted earlier directions allowing them to amend their petition against the impeachment.

In response, Mula’s lawyer told the judges, “I have been served with Gachagua’s application dated June 16, 2025, seeking to officially terminate pre-impeachment cases. I have filed a replying affidavit. I have not yet received responses from the other parties regarding my substitution application.”

Lawyer Paul Nyamodi, representing the National Assembly, urged the bench to remain focused and criticised attempts by Gachagua’s team to form a new bench.

“The Chief Justice is not a judge of the High Court. The petitioners are not interested in prosecuting this case; they’re simply using delay tactics,” Nyamodi said, referring to previous court directions given on May 29.

His remarks were supported by lawyer Peter Wanyama, who represented Speaker Moses Wetang’ula and Deputy Speaker Gladys Boss Shollei. Wanyama opposed the request to send a recusal application to Chief Justice Martha Koome.

“You have no jurisdiction to review or set aside the Chief Justice’s decision. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they should seek judicial review,” he told the court.