The High Court has dismissed an attempt to hold President William Ruto and other government officials in contempt over the recent appointments to the electoral commission, ruling that due process must be followed before such claims can be considered.

A three-judge bench of Roselyne Aburili, John Chigiti and Bahati Mwamuye declined to admit the oral application made on Monday, noting that the matter was too serious to be determined through verbal submissions and without giving the accused parties an opportunity to be heard.

"The issue being grave cannot be determined in oral submissions, particularly against individuals who are not parties to the proceedings and who have not been afforded the right to be heard,” the judges stated.

The petitioners had argued that Ruto acted in violation of a court order issued by Justice Lawrence Mugambi, which had temporarily stopped the gazettement of the nominees to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, including the chairperson.

Appearing for the petitioners, lawyer Paul Muite urged the court to impose sanctions for what he termed clear defiance of the court’s directive. “Knowledge of a court order supersedes service. A contemnor has no audience until the contempt is purged,” he told the bench.

Muite’s position was supported by fellow counsel Otieno, who cited a supplementary bank authority filed on June 20, arguing it backed the position that individuals acting in contempt should not be granted audience in court.

However, the respondents dismissed the application as lacking merit and legal standing.

Counsel Mbita, representing the first respondent, said no formal application or affidavit for contempt had been filed, and insisted that parties cannot be expected to respond to accusations raised informally during proceedings.

“This application is misplaced, lacking a legal foundation. The rules of fair hearing prohibit altering a case after submissions have been made,” he said, accusing the petitioners of introducing arguments outside their initial pleadings.

Lawyer Kipkogei, appearing for the second respondent, described the contempt claim as flawed and lacking necessary details.

“You cannot ask for a finding of contempt without identifying the contemnor. The court hasn’t been properly moved under the law,” he said, urging the court to proceed with the main petition.

The ruling now clears the way for the continuation of the substantive case challenging the appointments, even as the petitioners seek other avenues to enforce the earlier court order.