The High Court has thrown out a petition seeking to hold National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula in contempt of court over his handling of the majority party question in Parliament, ruling that the petitioners failed to prove any deliberate violation of its earlier orders.
In a ruling delivered on Friday, May 29, a three-judge bench found that Kenneth Njagi Njiru and fellow petitioners had not met the legal bar required to establish contempt. The court found no evidence that Wetang’ula had intentionally defied its February 7, 2025 judgment.
“We therefore find no proof of deliberate and willful disobedience by the respondent of the specific terms of the orders we issued,” the bench ruled. “It is our finding that contempt of court has not been established. The application lacks merit.”
The case arose from Wetang’ula’s decision to designate the Azimio la Umoja One Kenya Coalition Party as the minority side in the National Assembly — a move the petitioners argued was a direct violation of the February ruling, which had declared his October 2022 determination on majority and minority party status unconstitutional and void.
Lawyer Kibe Mungai, representing the petitioners, contended that Wetang’ula had continued advancing the ruling administration’s agenda, despite the court having found that he could not simultaneously serve as Speaker and leader of Ford Kenya while remaining affiliated with Kenya Kwanza.
The court, however, held that its February orders were largely declaratory in nature — meaning they clarified the legal position rather than directing any specific action.
“A declaratory order means a ruling that is explanatory in purpose. It is designed to clarify what was previously uncertain,” the judges stated.
The petitioners had additionally sought orders barring Wetang’ula from discharging his duties as Speaker and nullifying all proceedings he had presided over following the February ruling. The court rejected these requests, ruling that they sought to introduce new facts and effectively expand the scope of the original judgment — something the bench was not willing to entertain.
On the question of review, the judges noted that at least four appeals had already been filed against the February judgment, making any attempt to amend or review it legally untenable. The bench directed that dissatisfied parties pursue the appeal route instead.
For contempt to be legally established, the court outlined four conditions that must be satisfied: the order must be unambiguous, the respondent must be aware of it, there must be a breach, and that breach must be deliberate. The court found that none of these conditions had been met.
The petition was dismissed, with each party directed to bear its own costs — a legal signal that the court found the case without sufficient merit to warrant a cost award against either side.
The ruling closes one chapter in a prolonged legal battle over parliamentary power, though multiple appeals at the Court of Appeal mean the broader majority party dispute remains unresolved.
