Court declares Isiolo Governor Guyo's ouster null and void
Isiolo Governor Abdi Guyo.
What you need to know:
- Governor Guyo was impeached on Thursday after all 16 MCAs present endorsed the motion tabled by Sericho MCA Abubakar Godana.
- County Assembly Speaker and Clerk ordered to appear in court on Monday next week to respond to the allegations of contempt of court.
Isiolo Governor Abdi Guyo has gotten a reprieve after the High Court in Meru affirmed an earlier order barring the County Assembly from proceeding with the impeachment motion.
Governor Guyo was impeached on Thursday after all 16 MCAs present endorsed the motion tabled by Sericho MCA Abubakar Godana.
But Justice Heston Mbogo, in a virtual court, on Friday stated that a conservatory order issued on June 23 was still in force and any action by the Assembly was in contempt.
"The orders dated June 25, 2025 are still in force. Any acts by the respondents or any other party, in defiance of the court order, shall be null and void. The orders shall remain in force until they are set aside by the court," Justice Mbogo directed.
Lawyer Ekuru Aukot, who appeared for the respondents, told the court that they would appeal the decision immediately.
Mr Abdi Hassan filed a petition and obtained orders against the County Assembly of Isiolo, the Speaker and clerk on the impeachment motion dated June 18.
On Friday, Mr Hassan's lawyers Eric Theuri and Elias Mutuma filed a contempt of court application against the Speaker and the Clerk.
Justice Mbogo ordered the Speaker and the clerk to appear in court in person, on Monday next week to respond to the allegations of contempt of court.
This is after their legal counsel Dr Aukot, Mr Paul Wafula, Mr Alex Mbaya and Mr Boniface Mwereru avoided to respond to whether the County Assembly had adhered to the court order.
The respondent lawyers also sought to make an application for recusal of the judge and stay of proceedings.
"The respondents have a right to file an application for recusal and stay of proceedings only after answering the question of whether the order was obeyed," Justice Mbogo said.
However, Dr Aukot and Mr Wafula argued that the court should have determined the question of jurisdiction before addressing the issue of contempt.
Mr Mbaya said the County Assembly raised the question of jurisdiction of the court on June 25 but their application was not addressed.
"Instead, a conservatory order was issued and this is why our client has lost confidence in the court. They feel that their right to fair trial has been denied. We are seeking stay of proceedings so that we can appeal," Mbaya told the court.
But Lawyer Theuri differed with the respondents' counsels saying the issue of jurisdiction of the court was not on the table.
"This is an unorthodox review of the directions given by this court on June 25. Such an application is meant to delay the administration of Justice and should not be granted," Mr Theuri told the court.
Lawyer Mutuma asked the court to find the respondents in contempt accusing them of an attempt to exhaust the court's time.
Justice Mbogo noted that while the respondents may seek recusal of the judge, active court orders must be obeyed.
"Recusal does not sheild the respondents from obeying court orders," Justice Mbogo said.
The judge warned that there was an attempt to drag the proceedings through several applications.
Following the impeachment of the Governor on Thursday, the County Assembly Speaker was expected to present the resolution to the Senate within two days.
It now remains to be seen how the Senate will handle the legal question of contempt against the County Assembly.
The assembly tabled and considered a second impeachment motion dated June 17 after debate a previous motion dated June 10 was suspended by the High Court.