Ruto's Advisors' Bid to Suspend 'Unconstitutional Ruling' rejected

On February 3, 2026, Kenya's High Court dismissed a fresh bid by President William Ruto's 21 presidential advisors to suspend (or stay) an earlier ruling that declared their appointments unconstitutional and null and void.

The original judgment was delivered on January 22, 2026, by High Court Judge Bahati Mwamuye. 

It ruled that the creation and staffing of these advisory offices violated the Constitution and statutory requirements for public offices. 

The court ordered the immediate cessation of their salaries, allowances, and benefits. 

The case originated from a petition by the Katiba Institute, a public interest group that challenged the appointments.

Following the ruling, the advisors—including notable figures like economist David Ndii—filed an urgent application (under a Certificate of Urgency) seeking a temporary suspension of the judgment, reportedly for 180 days. 

This was intended to allow them time to lodge and pursue an appeal at the Court of Appeal without the ruling taking immediate effect, which they argued would cause operational disruptions in government functions (e.g., in areas like national security, economic planning, and constitutional affairs).

Katiba Institute opposed the application, arguing that the High Court's decision was final, that the court was functus officio (no longer had jurisdiction to revisit its own ruling), and that any challenge should come through a proper appeal rather than re-litigating the same issues. 

They dismissed claims of crippling government operations, noting the Executive had functioned without such advisors in the past.

In the ruling delivered on February 3, 2026, Justice Bahati Mwamuye dismissed the applications, citing the doctrine of res judicata (which prevents re-litigation of matters already conclusively decided by the court). The judge noted that the new applications merely rehashed arguments previously rejected and introduced no novel issues or demonstrated risk of injustice warranting a stay.

The court declined to halt implementation of the earlier ruling.

However, reports indicate the court allowed the Attorney General (representing the government) to proceed with an appeal to the Court of Appeal. 

The government has signaled its intent to challenge the original decision.

This development represents a significant setback for the affected advisors and the Executive, reinforcing the January ruling unless overturned on appeal. 

The case highlights ongoing tensions over executive appointments, constitutional compliance in creating public offices, and the role of judicial oversight in Kenya.