The Supreme Court of Kenya threw out the petition that sought to block President-elect William Ruto from swearing-in.

Eleven activists filed the petition challenging the suitability of Ruto and his running mate Rigathi Gachagua to hold office over integrity issues.

According to the Supreme Court, it does not have the jurisdiction to address the issues the activists raised in their petitions.

“The applicants are inviting the court to assume jurisdiction outside the confines of Article 163 (3) as read with Article 140 (1) of the constitution. They are inviting the court to unconstitutionally expand its jurisdiction. To wait until a day to the General Elections, before seeking the orders of such magnitude, casts the petitioners in a cynical scheme of abuse of the processes of this Court,” the Supreme Court judges said.

The court advised the activists should have filed the petition at the High Court instead.

Read More

  1. Cane growers in Kenya optimistic of revival as Ruto assents to Sugar Bill 2022
  2. Taxpayers’ Day: Ruto celebrates Kenya's economic gains, compliance milestones
  3. Businesses in Kenya left in a daze as Govt declares Friday a ‘Kindiki’ public holiday

The activists wanted the Supreme Court to stop the swearing-in of Ruto and Gachagua pending the determination of their suit and they also wanted to court to interpret the application of ethics and integrity law to persons seeking elective positions.

According to the eleven activists, Gachagua was unsuitable to hold office and Ruto’s decision to nominate him as his running mate was invalid hence their participation in the presidential election was illegal and unconstitutional.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the activists should have filed the case at the High Court and dismissed the case after the President-elect, his deputy and the UDA party objected to the case arguing that the petition offends the principle of exhaustion of avenues of recourse available in the constitution.

“The petition offends the principle of exhaustion as regards avenues of recourse available pursuant to Article 88 (4) (d) and (e) of the Constitution. It fails the test of justiciability and ripeness and offends the principle of sub-judice as there is another Constitutional petition pending before the High Court,” Veronica Maina said.

They also opined through their lawyer Elias Mutuma that the petition was an abuse of the court process and only amounts to forum shopping.

“The petition is an abuse of the court process and it amounts to forum shopping in that the petitioners have filed a similar petition in the High court Constitutional division where they are seeking similar orders and based on the same set of facts,” Mutuma said.

Mutuma said the activists invoked the Supreme Court’s authority to hear and determine constitutional matters prematurely and wrongly.