Mwambire v Clerk, County Assembly of Kilifi & 2 others (Petition E019 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1970 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Mombasa struck out the Kilifi Assembly Speaker's attempt to block his own impeachment, ruling it was filed too early.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the court has jurisdiction in the first instance to intervene in the process of removing the petitioner as Speaker of the County Assembly of Kilifi
- 2.Whether the petition is premature given the ongoing removal process before the County Assembly
- 3.Whether the respondents' initiation of the removal process is constitutional and lawful, having regard to section 11 of the County Government Act and Standing Order 59
Key legal issues
#Prematurity of the petition and the court's jurisdiction to intervene in impeachment
The petition was premature because the ad hoc committee process and the speaker's right to appear before the committee or whole assembly had not been exhausted; the objections were upheld to that extent and the petition struck out.
The court found the petitioner confirmed that events had overtaken the petition since the ad hoc committee had been empanelled and sat on 16 June 2025. Following the authorities cited by the respondents, impeachment is a separate constitutional process in which courts should not interfere while it is ongoing. The statutory timelines under section 11(5) of the County Government Act had been substantially followed, and the petitioner still had the rights under sections 11(7) and (8) to appear and be represented before the assembly.
Lawfulness of the removal process initiated by the respondents
The procedures set in motion were constitutional and lawful when weighed against Article 195 of the Constitution and section 11 of the County Government Act.
The court traced the statutory timelines: notice of the motion dated 9 June 2025, the Clerk's notice of 10 June 2025 inviting the petitioner to respond within 7 days, and the convening of the assembly on 16 June 2025. The court held these steps consistent with section 11(5) of the CGA, and noted the petitioner had yet to appear before the ad hoc committee or the whole assembly, after which a two-thirds vote under sections 11(7) and (8) would be required.
Limits of judicial interference with county assemblies
Courts do not intervene when an assembly exercises legislative functions, but may intervene where committees exercise administrative jurisdiction that violates private or public rights.
Relying on Nzioka v County Assembly of Kitui, the court articulated the general principle of non-interference with legislative functions, while preserving judicial oversight over administrative actions of committees. This framed the boundary of the court's jurisdiction but, on the facts, the process was found lawful and the petition premature.
Legal principles established
#- County assemblies are entitled to perform their duties and courts should not interfere with their mandate, but courts may intervene in administrative proceedings of committees to prevent violation of private and public rights.
- Where a statutory removal process is lawful and still in motion, a petition challenging it before the assembly process concludes is premature.
Court orders
#- 1.The petition dated 13 June 2025 and the Notice of Motion dated 13 June 2025 are struck out for being premature
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (impeachment/removal of a county assembly speaker under Article 178 read with Article 195; jurisdiction contested by preliminary objection)
Relief refused
#Orders stopping the empanelling and hearing of the impeachment motion dated 9 June 2025
The events had overtaken the petition and the removal process as undertaken was lawful and still ongoing; the court found the petition premature
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
On this basis, the objections are with merit to the extent that the petition is premature before the court. The process undertaken is lawful. The petition is struck out. Being premature, each party to bear its costs.
The County Assemblies are entitled to perform their duties, and the Courts should not interfere with or restrict their mandate.
However, when the Committees are merely exercising their administrative jurisdiction, the Courts can intervene in their proceedings to prevent violation of private and public rights
To this extent, the procedures set in motion are constitutional and lawful, weighed against the provisions of Article 195 of the Constitution and section 11 of the CGA.
The petition is thus limited to stopping the removal process scheduled for 16 June 2025 and nothing beyond. Parties are bound by their pleadings; where a statute has established dispute resolution procedures, those must be followed.
Issues in the judgment
#Notice date inconsistency within the judgment - the petitioner's submissions refer to a notice dated 6 June 2025 in one passage and 8 May 2025, 9 June 2025 and 10 June 2025 elsewhere, without reconciliation
Duplicate paragraph numbering - paragraph 12 appears twice (once in submissions, once under Determination)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwambire v Clerk, County Assembly of Kilifi & 2 others (Petition E019 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1970 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1970/eng@2025-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.