WE WAITING FOR UR RESPONSE HONOURABLES

President Uhuru Kenyatta,
DP William Ruto given 14
days to respond to suit
seeking to remove them
from office
Updated Monday, January 6th 2014 at 15:00
GMT +3
Tweet 1
Share 2
By Lucianne Limo
NAIROBI, KENYA: The High Court has given
President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy William
Ruto 14 days to respond to a suit seeking to
remove them from office.
The Attorney General Githu Muigai, acting on
behalf of Uhuru and Ruto asked Justice Isaac
Lenaola for time to file a response objecting to
the application.
The Judge noted that he had given the AG time to
respond to the application on December 10 last
year yet they had not responded.
"I have no response from your office and I do
not want to make a ruling without the response
of the AG," said Lenaola.
He directed the AG to file a response for the
application within 14 days and appear before
him for hearing on January 24.
Isaac Aluochier wants Uhuru and Ruto to cease
from holding the top jobs in the country for
allegedly being in office illegally.
He argued that prior to becoming President,
between August 27,2010 and April 2012, Uhuru
was Kanu Chairman and continued to hold the
position of an appointed Deputy Prime Minister
of Kenya  right until he assumed office as
President.
He accused Ruto of prior to becoming Deputy
President, between August 27 2010 and August
2011, was both the Deputy Party Leader, Strategy
of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) an
appointed Minister for Higher Education, Science
and Technology.
Aluochier cited Article 77(2) of the Constitution
which prohibits an appointed State officer from
holding office in a political party.
"By the Respondents holding both the offices of
appointed Ministers in the Cabinet, and political
party offices, they contravened Article 77(2) of
the Constitution," he said.
The petitioner wants the court declare that by
the operation of Article 75(3) of the
Constitution, the Respondents were rendered
disqualified from holding any other State office.
In his petition, he wants the court to order the
respondents’ holding of the offices of President
and Deputy President to cease with immediate
effect, as they are not qualified to hold these or
any other State offices.
The petitioner also wants the court to order the
duo to pay general damages amounting to the
cost of holding a presidential by-election, and
the sum total of salaries and allowances they
received as State officers over the period.
He argued that Pursuant to Article 75(2) of the
Constitution, the Respondents had to be
disciplined for their contraventions of Article
77(2), a discipline that was not carried out
against them.
GO TO PAGE 1 2 Next »