The Senate has asked the High Court to dismiss a petition that seeks to stop Parliament from considering a motion that could trigger a review of former President Uhuru Kenyatta’s retirement benefits. The Senate argued that the petition is premature and rests on speculation.
In grounds of opposition filed on Monday, June 8, 2026, the Senate said the petitioner failed to meet the legal threshold for conservatory orders as set out by the Supreme Court.
The House maintained that the petitioner did not establish a prima facie case and did not show any prejudice that would result if the court declined to grant the orders. It added that no decision has yet been made that could adversely affect the petitioner or the former president.
The dispute stems from a motion reported to have been filed on May 4, 2026, by Kiprotich Cherargei, seeking to review, audit, and vary Kenyatta’s retirement benefits under the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act. However, the Senate said the motion has not been tabled for consideration, and therefore Parliament has not reached a stage capable of impacting the parties involved.
The Senate said Parliament has constitutional autonomy to manage its internal affairs under Articles 117 and 124 of the Constitution. It pointed out that those provisions protect the freedom of debate in Parliament and allow each House to regulate its own proceedings through its Standing Orders.
The Senate added that the Speaker, under the Senate Standing Orders, determines whether motions meet the required standards before they are tabled and debated. It argued that court involvement at this stage would amount to an unconstitutional intrusion into Parliament’s mandate.
The House also invoked the doctrine of ripeness, saying courts should avoid ruling on constitutional disputes that remain speculative or have not developed into concrete controversies. It argued that no real harm has occurred because the motion at the centre of the petition has not been debated or adopted.
In addition, the Senate said the petition violates the principle of separation of powers by asking the court to interfere with parliamentary processes before Parliament exercises its constitutional authority.
“The court should exercise restraint and respect the independence of Parliament as a co-equal arm of government,” the Senate argued. It added that if Parliament eventually passes a motion affecting the benefits of a retired president, the High Court would still have jurisdiction under Article 165 of the Constitution to review the decision’s constitutionality.
The Senate therefore asked the court to find that both the application and the petition are frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court process. It urged the court to dismiss the case and award costs.
The petitioners, a lobby group Sheria Mtaani and advocate Shadrack Wambui, filed the matter under a certificate of urgency. They asked the court to stop Parliament from considering the proposed motion.
They argued that the intended parliamentary process violates the Constitution and threatens rights protected under it. The petitioners said the court’s intervention is necessary before the Senate debates the matter.
