The application, filed by Joseph Enock Aura through lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui, accuses the judges of creating circumstances that raise concerns about impartiality and the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing.
Petitioner challenges bench handling of case
Aura filed a Notice of Motion for the Plea of Recusal of the Bench dated October 1, 2025.
He wants Justices E. Ogola, A. Mrima, and Lady Justice Frida Mugambi removed from further proceedings in the constitutional petition.
The petition challenges what Aura describes as the alleged impeachment of Gachagua and the process that led to Prof. Kindiki’s nomination as Deputy President.
Lawyer raises concerns over separate hearing
Through lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui, Aura argues that the court wrongly separated his petition from other related constitutional cases.
He claims the other petitions raise similar issues and should proceed together.
According to the petitioner, handling his case separately creates a risk of conflicting decisions and violates his right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution.
Aura argues that an informed person could reasonably suspect bias because his case is being treated differently from related matters.
Petitioner cites Chief Justice guidance
The application refers to a letter from Chief Justice Martha Koome dated January 23, 2025.
In the letter, the Chief Justice acknowledged Aura’s request for his petition to be heard by a five-judge bench alongside related cases.
She advised that any request to expand or reconstitute the bench should be presented before the trial court, allowing all parties involved to participate.
Aura argues that the current bench is considering the issue without involving other petitioners whose cases raise similar constitutional questions.
Recusal application relies on legal precedents
The petitioner has relied on previous Supreme Court decisions to support his request.
He cited Omoke v Kenyatta & 83 Others, arguing that courts should consider judicial resources, time, and costs when deciding whether to consolidate cases.
Aura also referred to Law Society of Kenya v Centre for Human Rights & Democracy & 12 Others, where the Supreme Court emphasized that consolidation can promote efficiency and prevent delays.
He maintains that separate hearings could lead to unnecessary duplication of proceedings.
Petitioner fears unfair outcome
Aura says continuing with the case separately could disadvantage him and expose him to legal challenges if related matters are decided first.
He argues that a judgment in consolidated cases could affect his ability to pursue his own petition later.
The petitioner insists that the recusal request aims to protect transparency, fairness, and confidence in the judicial process.
Court to determine next steps
If the judges recuse themselves, Aura has requested that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for further directions.
The High Court is yet to hear the application, which will determine the next stage of the constitutional dispute.
