High court rejects petition seeking to kick out Nairobi Finance CEC Charles Kerich

A legal challenge seeking to force Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja to sack Finance County Executive Committee Member Charles Kerich has collapsed after the High Court ruled that the petitioner had taken the wrong route in pursuing his removal over alleged contempt of court.

Justice Patricia Nyaundi Mande struck out the petition after finding that the removal of a county executive member must follow the procedures laid down in the County Governments Act.

The judge agreed with the State Law Office that the matter had been brought prematurely because the petitioner had not exhausted the available legal channels.

The case was filed by Samwel Bryan Yongo Otumba, who questioned Kerich's suitability to continue serving in the county government following an earlier contempt of court finding against him.

Otumba told the court that Kerich had been found in contempt by Justice Francis Gikonyo in a separate ruling delivered on October 14, 2025. He maintained that the alleged failure to comply with the court order amounted to a constitutional violation that warranted his removal from public office.

The petitioner sought orders directing Governor Sakaja to exercise his authority under Section 31(a) of the County Governments Act and remove Kerich from the Finance docket within 30 days.

He also presented an alternative request seeking to compel the Nairobi County Assembly Speaker and Clerk to accept, table and process a motion for Kerich's removal under Section 40(2) of the Act.

The State Law Office challenged the petition, arguing that the court could not intervene before the petitioner had pursued the established removal procedures.

It maintained that the law assigns the responsibility of initiating and processing the removal of a county executive member to the governor and the county assembly.

In determining the dispute, Justice Nyaundi held that the existence of alleged constitutional violations did not give the petitioner grounds to disregard the procedures already provided under the law.

She noted that the petition essentially sought to have the court determine Kerich's fitness to remain in office and issue directives that would set the removal process in motion.

“However he frames it, the petitioner is essentially inviting the court to enter into the territory assigned to the governor, the county assembly and the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission,” the judge observed.

The judge further noted that Otumba had recognised that the law provides a specific procedure for removing a county executive member but argued that the constitutional questions raised in his case justified seeking direct intervention from the judiciary.

However, Nyaundi dismissed that position, pointing to previous court decisions which require litigants to first seek redress from institutions legally empowered to handle their complaints.

She relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others, which addressed the limits of judicial authority.

“The starting point, and indeed the ending point, in any inquiry into jurisdiction is the decision of the Supreme Court in Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others,” she stated.

The Supreme Court had established that judicial authority must be derived from the Constitution or legislation, meaning courts cannot exercise powers beyond those expressly granted to them.

Having found that the petitioner had not followed the prescribed legal process, Justice Nyaundi upheld the preliminary objection raised by the State Law Office and struck out the case.

“On account of the foregoing, I will uphold the preliminary objection and find that the petition being premature is struck out,” she ruled.