Nairobi High Court: Dismisses Kerich Removal Petition on Procedure

• The High Court dismissed a petition seeking to remove Charles Kerich, Nairobi CECM for Finance and Economic Planning.
• Justice Patricia Nyaundi ruled the petition was premature due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust statutory removal procedures.
• Petitioner Bryan Yongo cited Kerich's past contempt of court conviction from October 14, 2025, over an unpaid KSh 106 million legal debt.
• The court affirmed that initial removal processes for county executive members lie with the Governor, County Assembly, and the EACC.
• The ruling underscores the necessity of following established legal frameworks before seeking judicial intervention in such matters.

Justice Patricia Nyaundi emphasized that the judiciary's role in such matters is to intervene only when the legally mandated bodies, such as the Governor, the Nairobi County Assembly, or the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, have demonstrably failed to fulfill their duties.

The High Court has dismissed a petition that sought the removal of Charles Kerich, the Nairobi County Executive Committee Member (CECM) for Finance and Economic Planning. The petition, filed by businessman Bryan Yongo, was struck out by Justice Patricia Nyaundi, who determined it was prematurely brought before the court due to the petitioner's failure to follow established statutory procedures for removing a county executive committee member.

Yongo's petition was predicated on allegations of gross misconduct stemming from Kerich's prior conviction for contempt of court. This conviction, dated October 14, 2025, arose from his failure to settle a KSh 106 million legal fees debt owed to Kwengu and Company Advocates. At the time of the contempt finding, Kerich served as Nairobi's CECM for Finance and Economic Affairs. He had been sentenced to three months in prison, but these committal orders were subsequently lifted after he agreed to settle the outstanding amount. The settlement involved an immediate payment of KSh 30 million, with the remaining KSh 73.4 million to be paid in two installments of KSh 36.7 million each.

The petitioner contended that Kerich's contempt finding and his alleged failure to fully purge it rendered him unfit to hold public office, citing Article 75(3) of the Constitution. Yongo also sought declarations that Kerich had violated constitutional provisions and engaged in gross misconduct under Section 40 of the County Governments Act. Furthermore, the petition requested a court order compelling Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja to remove Kerich from his position within 30 days.

In response to the petition, Charles Kerich raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the matter was premature, incompetent, and constituted an abuse of the court process. He asserted that the petitioner had not invoked the statutory mechanisms specifically designed for the removal of a county executive committee member, thereby contending that the court lacked jurisdiction to initiate his removal without adherence to the prescribed procedures outlined in the Constitution and the County Governments Act.

Bryan Yongo countered this argument by asserting that the court's constitutional mandate to enforce the Constitution should not be constrained by statutory procedures. He maintained that his petition raised significant questions of constitutional accountability, which he believed justified an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory procedures in Kenya. Yongo urged the court to reject the preliminary objection and allow the petition to proceed to a full hearing.

Justice Patricia Nyaundi, however, upheld Kerich's objection and struck out the petition. Her ruling underscored that the initial responsibility for addressing such matters lies with the Governor, the Nairobi County Assembly, and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC). Justice Nyaundi emphasized that the judiciary's role in such matters is to intervene only when the legally mandated bodies, such as the Governor, the Nairobi County Assembly, or the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, have demonstrably failed to fulfill their duties.

This High Court decision serves as a significant reinforcement of the principle requiring the exhaustion of statutory and administrative remedies before judicial intervention can be sought in matters concerning the removal of public officers. The ruling clarifies that courts are not the initial forum for such disputes, particularly when specific legal frameworks, like Section 40 of the County Governments Act, outline clear procedural steps for addressing misconduct or unsuitability for office.

The outcome of this case highlights the importance for individuals seeking to challenge the conduct of public officials to meticulously follow all prescribed legal and administrative channels. It establishes a precedent that premature judicial petitions, bypassing the established mechanisms involving relevant executive and legislative bodies, are likely to be dismissed. This approach ensures that the designated institutions are given the opportunity to exercise their mandates before the judiciary steps in.

This ruling reinforces the critical importance of exhausting statutory and administrative remedies before initiating judicial proceedings for the removal of public officers in Kenya. Lawyers advising on such matters must ensure all prescribed procedures under the County Governments Act and other relevant statutes are meticulously followed to avoid premature dismissal of their petitions.

Source: Original reporting via Capital FM.