Sonko v Clerk, County Assembly of Nairobi City & 11 others
The bottom line
#Supreme Court upholds Mike Sonko's impeachment, confirming proper procedures were followed.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court dismissed former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko's appeal against his impeachment. The court ruled that impeachment is not a criminal process; it only requires that allegations be substantiated, not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Verification of the motion by signing a clerk's form was sufficient. Public participation was achieved through newspaper ads and surveys. The court's role is limited to checking if constitutional rights and procedures were respected, not to re-decide the impeachment itself.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether due process was followed by the County Assembly in the removal of the appellant from the office of Governor
- 2.whether the appellant was accorded adequate time and facility to respond to the charges against him both at the county assembly and in the Senate
- 3.whether it was mandatory to verify the impeachment motion by affidavits or other statements on oath by members of the County Assembly who allegedly supported the motion
- 4.whether public participation was undertaken
- 5.whether the charges were substantiated to the prescribed standard warranting removal of the appellant from the office
- 6.whether the sovereignty of the people envisaged under article 1 of the Constitution was respected and protected in the removal process
- 7.whether the jurisdiction of this court has been properly invoked by the appellant
Key legal issues
#Whether the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was properly invoked under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution.
The appellant failed to demonstrate that the appeal concerns the interpretation or application of the Constitution, and the preliminary objection on jurisdiction was sustained.
The appellant invoked rules of procedure (Rules 9 and 33 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012) rather than the constitutional provisions conferring jurisdiction. The court held that it is incumbent on the appellant to demonstrate in limine that the grievance concerns the application or interpretation of the Constitution, which the appellant failed to do. The court sustained the preliminary objection but proceeded to address the merits due to public interest.
Whether due process was followed by the County Assembly in the removal of the appellant from office.
The impeachment proceedings before the County Assembly and the Senate were properly conducted in accordance with the Constitution, the County Governments Act, and the relevant Standing Orders.
The court reviewed the material and submissions and was satisfied that the proceedings complied with Article 181 of the Constitution, Section 33 of the County Governments Act, and the Standing Orders of the Assembly and Senate. The court found no merit in the appellant's challenge on this ground.
Whether the appellant was accorded adequate time and facility to respond to the charges.
The appellant had adequate time and facility to respond, considering the statutory timelines and the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.
The court agreed with the two superior courts below that the appellant was able to sufficiently respond to the charges brought against him, given the timelines stipulated in the law and the context of the pandemic.
Whether it was mandatory to verify the impeachment motion by affidavits or sworn statements.
Verification by signing a form provided by the Clerk, as per Standing Order 67(1), is sufficient; an affidavit or sworn statement is not required.
The court found that the mover and supporting members signed the verification form with their identification card numbers, which is the form of verification envisaged in the context of an impeachment motion. No material was presented to show the Court of Appeal erred in its analysis.
Whether public participation was undertaken in the impeachment process.
Public participation was adequately undertaken through advertisement in a local newspaper, submission of memoranda, and a survey using questionnaires; the proceedings were also public.
The two superior courts found uncontroverted evidence of public participation, and the Supreme Court found no fault in the Court of Appeal's analysis and conclusion on this ground.
Whether the charges were substantiated to the prescribed standard warranting removal.
The charges were proved to the standard required in impeachment proceedings, and proof of even a single charge would be sufficient.
The court noted that impeachment is not criminal and does not require criminal culpability. The County Assembly, Senate, and superior courts were convinced the charges were proved. Nothing warranted departure from those conclusions.
Whether the sovereignty of the people under Article 1 of the Constitution was respected.
The sovereignty of the people was respected as it was exercised through their democratically elected representatives in the County Assembly and Senate to uphold Chapter Six of the Constitution.
The court held that the people exercised their sovereign power through the State organs (Parliament and Legislative Assemblies) to enforce constitutional values, and the impeachment process was in accordance with the Constitution.
Legal principles established
#- Court's role in impeachment is limited to reviewing procedural compliance and constitutional rights violations.
- Verification of an impeachment motion requires signing the clerk's form, not an affidavit or sworn statement.
- Impeachment proceedings are quasi-judicial; substantiation of allegations suffices, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- Proof of even a single charge is sufficient to remove a governor from office.
- Public participation in impeachment can be satisfied through advertisements, memoranda, and surveys.
- An appellant must clearly demonstrate a constitutional interpretation issue to invoke the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition dated April 1, 2022 is hereby dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment affirming the impeachment
The court found the impeachment was in compliance with the Constitution and the law, and the appeal lacked merit.
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.
the court’s role is confined to deciding whether the Governor’s constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms have been breached in the process and whether the procedures for removal from office have been followed, without the court constituting itself into any of the two constitutional organs in whose hands the power to remove is vested.
That is the form of verification envisaged in the context of an impeachment motion and not an affidavit or any form of disposition.
The appellant has failed to do this. The preliminary objection, we find, meets the threshold in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors ltd [1969] EA 696 and we sustain it.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Impeachment procedure standards clarified
When challenging a governor's impeachment, focus on procedural irregularities and constitutional rights breaches, not the merits of the charges. The court will not re-weigh evidence. Ensure clients understand that verification by clerk's form is valid, and public participation can be minimal. Use this case to advise on the limited scope of judicial review in impeachment matters.
Governor accountability and due process
Businesses dealing with county governments should note that impeachment is a political process with legal safeguards. The ruling confirms that governors can be removed if even one charge is substantiated. For contracts or partnerships, monitor the governor's compliance with Chapter Six of the Constitution. Public participation in impeachment may affect county stability, so engage in such processes when possible.
Understanding impeachment rights
If you are a governor facing impeachment, you have the right to respond to charges within statutory timelines. The court will protect your fair hearing rights but will not overturn a properly conducted process. As a citizen, you can participate in impeachment through public hearings or submitting memoranda. This case shows that even a single proven charge can lead to removal.
Frequently asked questions
#What is the standard of proof for impeachment in Kenya?+
Impeachment in Kenya does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The standard is substantiation of allegations, meaning the charges must be supported by evidence. Even a single substantiated charge is enough to remove a governor, as confirmed in the Mike Sonko case.
Can a governor be impeached without an affidavit in Kenya?+
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that verification of an impeachment motion is done by signing a form provided by the County Assembly Clerk, not by affidavit or sworn statement. This was upheld in Mike Sonko's case, where members signed with their ID numbers.
What role does the Supreme Court play in impeachment cases in Kenya?+
The Supreme Court only checks whether the governor's constitutional rights were violated and whether proper procedures were followed. It does not re-decide the impeachment or substitute its judgment for that of the County Assembly or Senate. This was affirmed in Mike Sonko v Nairobi City County Assembly.
Was public participation required in Mike Sonko's impeachment?+
Yes, and the court found it was adequately done. The County Assembly advertised the motion in a local newspaper, received memoranda from the public, and conducted a survey using questionnaires. The proceedings were also open to the public, satisfying the constitutional requirement.
Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Enukan & 72 others v Tullow Kenya BV & 2 others; National Environment Management Authority & another (Interested Parties); Kenya Legal and Ethical IssuesNational Environment Tribunal Work on Hiv & Aids (kELIN) & another (Amicus Curiae) (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8329 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 8329 (KLR)26 Nov 2025
- Diasproperty Limited & another v Githae & 8 others[2025] KESC 19 (KLR)11 Apr 2025followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sonko v Clerk, County Assembly of Nairobi City & 11 others", Case Analysis (2022). Petition 11 (E008) of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2022/26/eng@2022-07-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.