Isiolo Governor Abdi Hassan Guyo has secured a major legal victory after the High Court declared his impeachment null and void, ruling that the County Assembly acted in defiance of valid court orders that had blocked the process.

In a judgment delivered by Justice Heston Nyaga sitting in Isiolo, the court upheld its earlier conservatory orders issued on June 25, restraining the County Assembly from taking any action on the impeachment motion.

The judge made it clear that the orders had not been set aside or stayed.

“The orders of June 25 were not set aside or stayed; they remain in force,” Justice Nyaga stated.

The judge faulted the County Assembly for moving ahead with the motion despite the existence of binding court orders, terming the act a serious violation of the rule of law.

He said the Assembly’s decision amounted to contempt of court.

The court found the Assembly in judicial contempt for wilfully disobeying the restraining orders, with Justice Nyaga warning that defying court orders undermines the foundation of lawful governance.

The judge also dismissed an application by the respondent’s lawyer, Dr Ekuru Aukot, who sought leave to appeal, ruling that no appeal would be considered until the respondent appeared in person before the court.

He said accountability before the court is not optional.

Earlier, the court had granted temporary conservatory orders stopping the impeachment process pending the hearing and determination of a petition filed by Abdi Ibrahim, who challenged the legality of the motion to remove Governor Guyo from office.

“I am satisfied that the Petitioner/Applicant has made out a case that warrants the relief sought,” Justice Nyaga ruled on Monday.

The court had certified the application dated June 13 as urgent, directing that all respondents be served with the court documents by the end of Tuesday, June 17.

Pending the hearing of the case, the court also barred the Isiolo County Assembly and its Speaker from admitting, processing, debating, or handling in any way the impeachment motion dated June 10.

That motion had been scheduled for debate on June 17 or any other day to be set by the Assembly.

In a further directive, Justice Nyaga ordered the third respondent—whose name was not disclosed—to supply the petitioner with a copy of the Notice of Motion and all its supporting documents within 48 hours of being served with the court order.

The court instructed the respondents to file their replies within seven days of service and allowed the petitioner to file and serve any supplementary affidavits within three days after receiving the responses.