A legal dispute has emerged over what appears to be a discrepancy in a major court judgment delivered in a consolidated constitutional petition involving former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua and other parties.

🇰🇪 Breaking It Down

Gachagua's lawyers have taken issue with the judgment shared with the parties in the case heard and determined by a three-judge bench consisting of Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima, and Lady Justice Freda Mugambi of the High Court.

The issue stems from what the lawyers say is missing 64 pages of the judgment that took nearly 10 hours to be delivered on June 8, 2026.

Gachagua's lawyers argue that d uring the delivery of the ruling in open court, Justice Ogola informed the advocates present that the court was delivering a 350-page verdict.

📌 What You Need to Know

However, the parties were subsequently served with a judgment consisting of only 286 pages.

According to the lawyers, this creates a discrepancy of 64 missing pages, with no explanation provided for the difference between what was read in court and what was later issued in writing.

Gachagua’s lawyers argue that this raises questions about the 'completeness and authenticity of the official judgment record'.

In their letter, the lawyers warned that any deviation undermines public confidence in the administration of justice, especially in a politically significant case involving multiple petitioners and state respondents, including the National Assembly and its speaker.

The matter now places pressure on the city registry to clarify whether the discrepancy is clerical, procedural, or substantive.

This followed People’s Liberation Party (PLP) leader Martha Karua raising concerns about contradictory and inconsistent court rulings in politically sensitive cases, claiming that some judgments have failed to adhere strictly to the law.

📰 Source: Kenyans.co.ke