In grounds of opposition filed on June 8, 2026, the Senate contends that the petitioner has failed to meet the legal threshold required for the grant of conservatory orders as set out by the Supreme Court.
The House argues that no prima facie case has been established and that the petitioner has not demonstrated any prejudice that would be suffered if the orders sought are denied.
The dispute arises from a motion reportedly filed on May 4, 2026, by Kiprotich Cherargei seeking to review, audit and vary the retirement benefits of the former Head of State under the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act.
However, the Senate maintains that the motion has not yet been tabled before the House for consideration and that no decision has been made capable of adversely affecting the petitioner or the former President.
According to the Senate, Parliament enjoys constitutional autonomy in the conduct of its affairs under Articles 117 and 124 of the Constitution, which safeguard freedom of debate in Parliament and empower each House to regulate its own proceedings through Standing Orders.
The House further argues that the Speaker is mandated under the Senate Standing Orders to determine the admissibility of motions before they are tabled and debated, adding that any court intervention at this stage would amount to an unconstitutional intrusion into Parliament’s mandate.
The Senate has also invoked the doctrine of ripeness, arguing that courts should refrain from determining constitutional disputes that are speculative or have not matured into actual controversies. It contends that no harm has been occasioned because the impugned motion has neither been debated nor adopted.
Further, the Senate says the petition offends the principle of separation of powers by inviting the court to interfere with parliamentary processes before Parliament has exercised its constitutional mandate.
“The court should exercise restraint and respect the independence of Parliament as a co-equal arm of government,” the Senate argues, adding that should Parliament eventually pass a motion affecting the benefits of a retired President, the High Court would still retain jurisdiction under Article 165 of the Constitution to review the constitutionality of that decision.
Consequently, the Senate has asked the court to find that both the application and the petition are frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process, and to dismiss them with costs.
The petition was filed by lobby group Sheria Mtaani alongside advocate Shadrack Wambui, who moved to court under a certificate of urgency seeking orders to stop Parliament from considering the proposed motion.
The petitioners argue that the intended parliamentary process is unconstitutional and threatens rights protected under the Constitution, prompting them to seek the court’s intervention before the matter is debated by the Senate.
