Judiciary Explains Court of Appeal Ruling on Ruto’s Advisors as Lawyers Dispute Process

The Judiciary has broken its silence and issued a clarification regarding the delivery of a ruling by the Court of Appeal that temporarily halted the implementation of a High Court judgment declaring offices of presidential advisors unconstitutional.

Judiciary Spokesperson Paul Ndemo, on Saturday, said the court followed proper procedure in delivering the ruling, dismissing concerns raised in a section of the media about the timeline and mode of communication.

According to the clarification, the application for a stay of execution was heard by a three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal of Kenya on February 23 this year. At the conclusion of the hearing, the bench indicated that the ruling would be delivered on April 24, 2026, or earlier upon notice to the parties involved.

However, after considering the matter, the judges reached a decision sooner than anticipated and opted to issue the ruling earlier. Ndemo stated that on March 12, the court, through the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, emailed a notice of delivery of the ruling to counsel for all parties, indicating that the decision would be delivered the following day via email.

He said the ruling was subsequently transmitted to lawyers on record at 12:56pm on March 13 using the same email addresses previously used to send hearing notices and virtual participation links for the February proceedings.

According to the Judiciary, the use of electronic communication is consistent with practices adopted since 2020 to enhance efficiency and ensure timely access to court decisions.

However, lawyers representing the petitioners disputed the Judiciary’s explanation, claiming they were not notified about the delivery of the ruling. Advocate Joshua Malidzo, who represents the Katiba Institute, accused the Judiciary of failing to notify them of the proceedings and the ruling.

Malidzo said neither he nor his client received the hearing notice, the virtual hearing link, the notice of the ruling, or the ruling itself, adding that they only appeared during the hearing after being alerted by a colleague.

“Unfortunately, the Judiciary has chosen to lie. I am the counsel on record. Let Hon. Ndemo produce the email thread showing that my client or I was served. Katiba Institute was not served with the hearing notice, the hearing link, the notice of the ruling, or the ruling,” Malidzo said.

Adding that, “We only appeared during the hearing because a friend alerted us. We brought this to the Court’s attention during the hearing. The Court record can easily confirm this. You cannot defend the indefensible. Sometimes, just an acknowledgement is enough. But drums go on.”

Former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Nelson Havi also weighed in on the matter, saying that, “We have moved from ‘ruling not ready, to be delivered on notice’, to ‘ruling is ready, it cannot wait for the scheduled date.’ This is good progress in the expeditious disposal of matters before the Court of Appeal. Do not engage if you cannot comprehend sarcasm.”

The controversy emerged after the Katiba Institute claimed it had learned through social media that the Court of Appeal had stayed the High Court judgment that declared the Office of Advisors to the President unconstitutional.

The dispute follows a ruling that handed President William Ruto a temporary reprieve after the appellate court suspended a High Court decision ordering the removal of his 21-member council of advisors.