Sonko v County Assembly of Nairobi City & 11 others
The bottom line
#Supreme Court upholds Mike Sonko’s impeachment; courts won’t second-guess political processes unless the Constitution is broken.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court dismissed Mike Sonko’s final appeal against his removal as Nairobi governor. The Court ruled that impeachment is a political process run by the County Assembly and the Senate, not the courts – as long as they follow the Constitution and fair procedures. Sonko was given notice, a chance to respond, and the Assembly had enough votes. Public participation also happened through ads, online submissions, and hearings. The Court decided all issues anyway, to guide future cases, even though it lacked full jurisdiction because Sonko’s appeal wasn’t properly filed under the right constitutional article.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the court's jurisdiction was properly invoked
- 2.Whether due process was followed by the County Assembly in the removal of the appellant from the office of Governor
- 3.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
- 4.Whether it was mandatory to verify the Motion for removal by affidavits or other statements on oath by MCAs who allegedly supported the Motion
- 5.Whether public participation was undertaken
- 6.Whether the charges were substantiated to the prescribed standard warranting removal of the appellant from the office
- 7.Whether the sovereignty of the people envisaged under article 1 of the Constitution was respected and protected in the removal process
Key legal issues
#Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to determine an appeal that did not specify the ground of appeal under article 163(4) of the Constitution
The court lacked jurisdiction because the appellant failed to specify which limb of article 163(4) the appeal was based on, but the court nonetheless proceeded to determine all issues in the public interest.
The court found that the petition of appeal was expressed to be brought under repealed rules and did not specify whether it was under article 163(4)(a) or (b). The court sustained the preliminary objection on jurisdiction. However, citing the need to develop jurisprudence and guide lower courts, and because the outcome would be the same either way, the court proceeded to determine all the substantive issues raised in the appeal. The court emphasized that this approach was not a departure from the Lillian S principle but an extension for the Supreme Court's specialized mandate.
Whether due process was followed by the County Assembly in the removal of the appellant from the office of Governor
Due process was followed; the appellant was notified of the charges, given an opportunity to be heard, and the County Assembly had the requisite quorum.
The court relied on concurrent findings of fact by the High Court and Court of Appeal that the appellant was served with the Motion and charges, that he instructed counsel, and that he chose not to attend. The Hansard record showed 90 MCAs were present and 88 voted for impeachment, meeting the two-thirds threshold. The court found no misdirection or conclusions based on no evidence to warrant interference.
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
The appellant was accorded adequate time and facility; the Senate meticulously followed its Standing Orders and the appellant filed a 118-page response.
The court noted that the appellant had seven days between December 10 and 16, 2020 to prepare, and that he filed a voluminous response. The Senate's procedure under Orders 75 and 76 was followed, and no step was taken outside the prescribed timelines. The court also deprecated the practice of 'parking' appeals to avoid Chapter Six consequences.
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
Verification under Order 67(1) of the Nairobi City County Assembly Standing Orders does not require affidavits; signatures of at least one-third of MCAs in support of the motion suffice.
The court interpreted Order 67(1) and found that the verification envisaged is by signatures on a verification form provided by the Clerk, not by sworn affidavits. The court held that if the intention was to require affidavits, the Standing Order would have expressly said so. The use of the verification form did not occasion a miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the appellant.
Whether public participation was undertaken in the impeachment of the Governor of Nairobi County
There was sufficient public participation through newspaper advertisements, online publication, questionnaires, and public hearings.
The court relied on concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts that the County Assembly published a notice in the Daily Nation newspaper, posted the Motion on its website, conducted a survey via questionnaires, and held public hearings. Over 40,000 submissions were received. The court noted that the Covid-19 pandemic necessitated alternative methods of public participation.
Whether the impeachment charges were substantiated to the prescribed standard to warrant the appellant's impeachment
The charges were substantiated to the required standard; all organs from the County Assembly to the Court of Appeal found proof of all charges.
The court reiterated that the standard of proof for impeachment is above a balance of probability but below reasonable doubt. The charges were detailed and specific, and the High Court and Court of Appeal independently evaluated the evidence and found them substantiated. The Supreme Court declined to re-evaluate the evidence for a third time, finding no perversity or illegality in the concurrent conclusions.
Whether the process of impeachment of the County Governor of Nairobi contravened the sovereignty of the constituents that elected him
The sovereignty of the people was respected; the people exercised their power through their elected representatives to uphold Chapter Six of the Constitution.
The court held that under article 1, sovereign power belongs to the people and is delegated to State organs. The County Assembly and Senate, as elected representatives, acted within their constitutional mandate to remove the appellant. Public participation ensured the people were directly involved. The removal process upheld the constitutional values of integrity and accountability.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal to the Supreme Court must state exactly which part of Article 163(4) it relies on; otherwise, the Court can refuse to hear it.
- The Supreme Court can choose to decide all issues in a case anyway, even without jurisdiction, if doing so develops the law and helps lower courts.
- Impeaching a county governor is a political process solely for the County Assembly and Senate; courts only intervene if the Constitution or natural justice is violated.
- The standard of proof for impeachment is medium – higher than a 50-50 balance but lower than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ – and proving just one charge is enough.
- Verification of an impeachment motion does not need sworn affidavits; signatures from at least one-third of MCAs on a form provided by the Clerk is sufficient.
- Public participation in removing a state officer is mandatory and can be done through newspaper notices, website posts, surveys, and public hearings – even during a pandemic.
Court orders
#- 1.The petition of appeal dated April 1, 2022 is hereby dismissed
- 2.Parties to bear their own costs
The bench
#Judges wrote separately. A dissent does not bind; a concurrence may narrow the ratio.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
We have read the majority Judgment and the reasons thereof. We agree that this appeal has been rightly dismissed for lack of merit. However, having determined that the appellant has not properly invoked this court's jurisdiction under article 163(4) of the Constitution, and having sustained the preliminary objection; we would have struck out the appeal at this stage without more.
We have read the majority Judgment and the reasons thereof. We agree that this appeal has been rightly dismissed for lack of merit. However, having determined that the appellant has not properly invoked this court's jurisdiction under article 163(4) of the Constitution, and having sustained the preliminary objection; we would have struck out the appeal at this stage without more.p. 43
Wrote the judgment
I have keenly and carefully read and considered the Judgment of the majority. The factual rendition of the facts and relevant laws are meticulously considered therein. I am in agreement with the conclusion of the majority. However, I write separately to address the question of jurisdiction.
I have keenly and carefully read and considered the Judgment of the majority. The factual rendition of the facts and relevant laws are meticulously considered therein. I am in agreement with the conclusion of the majority. However, I write separately to address the question of jurisdiction.p. 44
Wrote the judgment
We have read the majority Judgment and the reasons thereof. We agree that this appeal has been rightly dismissed for lack of merit. However, having determined that the appellant has not properly invoked this court's jurisdiction under article 163(4) of the Constitution, and having sustained the preliminary objection; we would have struck out the appeal at this stage without more.
We have read the majority Judgment and the reasons thereof. We agree that this appeal has been rightly dismissed for lack of merit. However, having determined that the appellant has not properly invoked this court's jurisdiction under article 163(4) of the Constitution, and having sustained the preliminary objection; we would have struck out the appeal at this stage without more.p. 43
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Civil Appeal No. E425 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Relief refused
#Setting aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on March 4, 2022
The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit; the removal of the appellant from office was in compliance with the Constitution and the law.
Quashing the resolution of the Senate passed on December 17, 2020 for the removal of the appellant from the office of the Governor
The court found the removal process was conducted in accordance with the Constitution and the law.
Costs to the appellant
The court ordered each party to bear their own costs due to the public interest nature of the case.
Costs
Parties to bear their 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.
We find no merit in this appeal and accordingly dismiss it.
Parties to bear their own costs.
in appropriate cases and only this final court, will rise to the occasion and not down tools, to resolve disputes that relate to its constitutional mandate.
The spheres of jurisdiction of the removal of a County Governor is exclusively reposed in two legislative organs, the County Assembly and the Senate, the representatives of the people.
The standard of proof is intermediate, that is, above a balance of probability but below all reasonable doubt, and the proof of any one of the charges is sufficient to discharge the burden of proof.
the Motion for the removal from office of Governor Nairobi County was duly verified in accordance with order 67(1) of the Nairobi City County Assembly Standing Orders; and that the verification is not in the form of an affidavit or any other forms of deposition.
Public participation is an integral element of the process of removal of a State officer from office.
the appellant was accorded a fair hearing within the meaning of article 50 and fair administrative action in terms of article 47 of the Constitution, and under the Standing Orders.
Chapter six, in our view, is the soul of the Constitution of Kenya. Without integrity in leadership, the Constitution itself will be in utmost peril.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Draft precise appeal grounds at Supreme Court
This ruling reaffirms that ignoring Article 163(4)(a) or (b) in your notice of appeal invites a preliminary objection. Always specify the exact limb – appeals on constitutional interpretation vs matters of general public importance. The Court stressed it will not tolerate vague pleadings. However, take note: even if you falter, the Court may still decide everything if the public interest demands it – but don’t rely on that exception.
Prepare for county leadership instability
Know your rights if accused in impeachment
If you’re a county governor facing impeachment, you have a right to be served with charges, time to prepare – even just 7 days – and to be heard by both the County Assembly and Senate. But don’t ignore the process: Sonko chose not to attend the Assembly hearing, and the Court said that was his decision. Hire a lawyer immediately. You can file a written response. Public participation also lets citizens like you submit comments to the Assembly or Senate.
Frequently asked questions
#Was Mike Sonko's impeachment in Kenya legal?+
Yes. The Supreme Court confirmed the impeachment followed the Constitution and County Assembly rules. The Assembly had enough votes (88 out of 90 MCAs). Sonko was notified, given 7 days to prepare, and filed a 118-page response. The Senate held public hearings and received over 40,000 submissions. The Court said due process was fully observed.
Can a Kenyan governor be impeached without sworn evidence?+
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that verifying an impeachment motion does not require sworn affidavits from MCAs. Signatures of at least one-third of MCAs on a form provided by the Clerk is sufficient under Nairobi's County Assembly Standing Orders. The Court said if affidavits were required, the rules would have said so.
What is the standard of proof for impeaching a Kenyan governor?+
It's an intermediate standard – higher than a balance of probability but lower than beyond reasonable doubt. This means the accusers need strong evidence, but not proof perfect. Also, if any one of the charges is proven to that standard, the impeachment succeeds even if other charges fail.
Can the Kenya Supreme Court hear an appeal that wasn't properly filed?+
Normally, no – the Court will sustain a preliminary objection and dismiss the appeal if the appellant doesn't specify which part of Article 163(4) they rely on. But in this case, the Court decided all the issues anyway because the outcome would be the same and to develop legal guidance for lower courts. This is a rare exception, not the rule.
Later judgments citing this (19)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mwambogo v Mwachimbi (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E038 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4931 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4931 (KLR)30 Jul 2026applied
- Karimi v Mutai (Personal/Legal representative of the Late Kanyua Mutai) (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5054 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 5054 (KLR)24 Jul 2026
- Kilindini Warehouse Ltd v County Government of Mombasa (Environment and Land Petition E018 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4324 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4324 (KLR)9 Jul 2026applied
- Okoth and Kiplagat Advocates v Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 others (Civil Appeal E401 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1212 (KLR)[2026] KECA 1212 (KLR)26 Jun 2026applied
- Republic v Deputy County Commissioner Tigania Central & 3 others; Gatebia (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1303 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 1303 (KLR)27 Feb 2026applied
- Gikenyi v County Government of Nakuru & 4 others[2026] KESC 12 (KLR)30 Jan 2026followed
- Gachogi v Japhet (Environment and Land Appeal E045 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7200 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7200 (KLR)16 Oct 2025
- Aluochier v Senate & 2 others[2025] KESC 59 (KLR)3 Oct 2025
- Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission v Attorney General[2025] KESC 57 (KLR)5 Sept 2025explained
- Sharpcut Designers Ltd v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others (Civil Appeal E273 of 2025) (20 June 2025) (Reasons) [2025] KECA 1132 (KLR)[2025] KECA 1132 (KLR)20 Jun 2025applied
- National Hospital Insurance Fund Management Board v Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers & another; Attorney General (Interested Party)[2025] KESC 37 (KLR)30 May 2025followed
- Oloo v Kisumu County Assembly Service Board & another; O.C.S. Kisumu Central Police Station & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Civil Appeal 008 of 2020) [2025] KECA 333 (KLR)[2025] KECA 333 (KLR)21 Feb 2025
- Kamau v Karanja & another[2024] KESC 64 (KLR)8 Nov 2024followed
- Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury and Planning & 4 others v Okoiti & 52 others; Bhatia (Amicus Curiae)[2024] KESC 63 (KLR)29 Oct 2024
- Kombe v Karisa & 3 others[2024] KESC 25 (KLR)31 May 2024followed
- Kamau v Kiarie & another (Legal Representative of the Estate of Naomi Wambui Kiarie - Deceased) (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 222 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 222 (KLR)25 Jan 2024applied
- Mwangi & another v Manyeki (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 220 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 220 (KLR)25 Jan 2024applied
- Gikonyo v Mwangi (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 221 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 221 (KLR)25 Jan 2024applied
- CMM (Suing as the Next of Friend of and on Behalf of CWM) & 6 others v Standard Group & 4 others[2023] KESC 68 (KLR)8 Sept 2023
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sonko v 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/2022/76/eng@2022-12-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.