https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7831

Yongo v Kerich & 6 others (Constitutional Petition E282 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7831 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (8 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7831 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Constitutional and Human Rights Constitutional Petition E282 of 2026 RE Aburili, J June 8, 2026 Between Bryan Yongo Petitioner and Charles Kerich 1st Respondent The Governor, Nairobi City County Government 2nd Respondent The County Assembly of Nairobi City County 3rd Respondent The Speaker, County Assembly Of Nairobi City County 4th Respondent The Nairobi City County Government 5th Respondent The Hon Attorney General 6th Respondent and The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Interested Party Ruling 1.I have perused the application dated 6th June 2026 which I certify to be urgent. 2.The application seeks my recusal from hearing this matter in view of the court’s direction in matters Judicial Review Decrees which the court engaged specific decree holders with decrees against the City County Government of Nairobi in structured settlement of longstanding decrees and upon such engagement, the City County Government budgeted for and ring-fenced funds and engaged the controller of budget to approve settlement of over 126 decrees which were pending as at that time. 3.The petitioner herein believes that I will not be impartial in this petition. I am no longer in the Judicial Review Division. 4.Nonetheless, the process initiated by the court is anchored in the Constitution in Article 159 (2) (c) of the Constitution and all decree holders embraced that fruitful process, as they had frantically sought to have the decrees settled in vain, despite contempt orders and warrants of arrest pending against the City County Government Chief Officer, Finance while some were issued against the 1st respondent herein, in their official capacities. 5.The court exists to facilitate the process of execution of decrees of the court and orders so that decree holders do not carry barren orders or decrees and prolonged delays in settlement of decrees would deny them justice. 6.The petitioner herein who is not a party to those Judicial review matters believes that this Court cannot impartially deal with the issues affecting the respondents where the 1st respondent has been held to be in contempt of court in a totally different matter, unrelated to the Judicial review decrees involving many decree holders who have benefitted from the Courts’ application of Article 159(2) (c) of the Constitution, embracing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to administer justice. 7.The petitioner’s assertions are far from the truth. I would deal with this matter independent of any other influence the way I handled mandamus decrees, in the interest of justice. However, I find no reason to insist on handling this petition where the petitioner is apprehensive that the court might apply the fruitful directions given in the Judicial Review matters, and which matters the decree holders therein are enjoying the fruits of the alternative dispute resolution process implored by this court and where over 20 decrees were settled in the first phase and over 70 others were earmarked for settlement in the second phase. 8.I therefore recuse myself from hearing this petition and direct the file to be placed before Hon. Lady Justice Patricia Nyaundi J, SC for further directions on 15/6/2026 as earlier fixed DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN CHAMBERS THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026R.E. ABURILIJUDGE